Our privacy is about to be serially infringed

Updated March 20, 2015 08:49:30

Photo: This is one of those moments upon which we will look back and wonder, how on earth... (Nic MacBean, file photo: ABC News)

Nobody put up a rationally argued case for why Australia needs a mass government surveillance program, but that's what we'll be getting when the data retention bill is given its final rubber stamp in the Senate, writes Michael Bradley.

In between bites of raw onion, the Prime Minister yesterday reassured all Australians with these words:

In the days when I was a journalist there were no metadata protections for journalists ... I was perfectly comfortable.

Sure, that was in 1986, before metadata even existed in its modern sense. But it is fitting as pretty much the final word on the debacle that is the data retention legislation now being imposed on an unsuspecting nation by agreement between both major parties.

The debate is over now, the Bill is going through with only the Greens and a few independents to raise objections. So it is timely to review where it leaves us (all of us).

The big picture

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act will, in its new amended form, require all telecommunication carriers and internet service providers to store the metadata of all communications passing to and from their customers (that's all telephone calls, texts, emails and other digital communications) for two years. These will be available to criminal enforcement agencies.

What is metadata?

Finally, we have a definition, the Government having backed down and agreed to include the "data set" in the Act itself. This includes your name, address and other identifying information, your contract details, billing and payment information. In relation to each communication, it includes the date, start and finish times, and the identities of the other parties to the communication. And it includes the location data, such as the mobile cell towers or Wi-Fi hotspots you were accessing at the time.

The Act says that service providers are "not required" to keep content data - that is, the actual content of your email or text, or the subject line, or your internet browsing history. Well, that's nice, although it would have been nicer still if they'd prohibited the providers from keeping it. As it is, if they do choose to keep it, well, it's there isn't it. More about that later.

But be clear on this: the metadata will give anyone who wants it more information about you than your loved ones will ever know. Who you called, texted or emailed; when; for how long; and where you were when you did it. Every single time. Think about that.

What the cops can do

The good news is that the list of government agencies which can access your metadata has been reduced from 80 to 20. Mainly, it's the cops, ASIO and the various anti-corruption agencies, plus ASIC and the ACCC. Once they get their hands on it, the two year cut-off goes away; they'll be hanging on to every bit of data they acquire, forever.

Will you know when your metadata is being trawled?

No.

What's this stink about journalists?

A last minute deal was stitched together to address the media's complaints that the police will grab their data so they can identify their sources, particularly whistleblowers and other people the government of the day or the cops themselves don't like. Anonymous sources being the life blood of the journalism profession, after all.

The police will now need to get a special type of warrant from a judge before they can access a journalist's data, if they want it for the purpose of identifying a source. Except for ASIO, which only needs the AG's permission; unless it's really urgent, in which case they can just go ahead and do it anyway. The journalist isn't informed and has no means of challenging the warrant.

Really, that's just wallpaper, but two interesting elements jump out. What's a journalist? It's a "person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist". Oh good, journalists are journalists.

And this: there's a new criminal offence, with a two-year jail term, for anyone who discloses the existence or non-existence of a journalist warrant, or anything about it. Hang on, I could be jailed for two years for saying that a warrant has not been taken out on a journalist's metadata? 100% pure Orwell. This is what you get when legislation is being drafted at 3am under the direction of people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

What about us non-journalists?

Tough. No protections. But surely they've included special protections for communications between doctors and patients, and lawyers and clients? No. Never even discussed.*

I forget, why are we doing this?

If you say "death cult" enough times in enough inappropriate contexts, everyone eventually forgets that you never actually properly explained why the draconian, police-state law you keep demanding is the only thing standing between us and Islamageddon. In that sense, the Government has prosecuted its cause with great success.

The fact does remain, however, that nobody has put up a rationally argued case for what is in reality a mass government surveillance program. I won't trawl back through the various justifications that have been put up by the Government; it's tiresome and pointless.

You'd think that, before we decided as a society to allow our privacy to be serially infringed in this most intimate and comprehensive way, we'd want to be absolutely sure it was necessary. We didn't get that chance, and our Government and Opposition have let us down in the worst way in their joint unseemly haste to look strong. This is one of those moments upon which we will look back and wonder, how on earth...

*Editor's note (20/03/15): The original version of this article incorrectly stated that metadata could be obtained for civil litigation cases. This was possible under the draft legislation but amendments to the final bill prevent it from happening.

Michael Bradley is the managing partner of Marque Lawyers, a Sydney law firm.

Topics: telecommunications, internet-culture, internet-technology, defence-and-national-security, federal-government

First posted March 19, 2015 17:39:28

Comments (154)

Add your comment

Chubblo:

19 Mar 2015 5:59:27pm

If this goes through the senate which it probably will, I'll be voting either Greens or Independents in the federal election for the remainder of the hopefully short time I still live in this woefully governed country. Let's not forget also the spineless opposition who somehow forgot they're meant to "oppose" such draconian measures.

Reply Alert moderator
- barsnax:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:09:00pm
  
  Me thinks the real reason for these laws are to stop whistle blowers from talking to the press about illegal and corrupt behaviours of the political parties.
  
  It's all about protecting themselves from scrutiny.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - lilly:
    
    19 Mar 2015 8:07:21pm
    
    I think you are absolutely correct. Of course whistle blowers can still pass a note to a journalist requesting a private meeting at a quiet location to discuss matters of mutual interest so in that sense it won't work. Further still, the criminal fraternity (including terrorists) will simply move away from IT as a means of communicating. It'll be a little inconvenient but I'm sure they'll manage (be just like the old days).
    
    Also you'll no doubt see a proliferation of VPNs and various other measures as people look for privacy from big brother. In fact, for the IT-minded out there, there is probably a ton of business opportunities helping people get around these laws. What do they say about an ill wind?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - ingenuous:
      
      20 Mar 2015 10:42:27am
      
      lilly, you're not thinking this through. There are different risks from different metadata. You seem worried about internet snooping. Location tracking from mobile phones is worse.
      
      How will that whistle blower hand that note to a journalist? In person, we presume. If both have their mobile phones on, then the fact they met will be recorded. Later, when the journalist publishes a leak exposing government wrongdoing, the whistle blower will be easily exposed.
      
      This is easy to do with location data. The journalist is publicly known, so its easy to get location data for him or her. Few people would have access to whatever dirt the government wants suppressed, so a simple search for the handful of phones that meet up will deliver the leaker, to be punished for being so public spirited.
      
      Even without any snooping on our internet, just the stuff they want to do with our phones is excessive and repellant.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Prime Lemur:
    
    19 Mar 2015 8:30:15pm
    
    Yes, I reckon its got a lot to do with 1) silencing whistleblowers, and 2) assisting movie studios sue Australian citizens over copyright.
    
    I too will not be voting Labor or Coalition. They've both disgraced themselves. And once again, the Greens are the only party with any morality, or an interest in the citizens of this country.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - JamesH:
    
    20 Mar 2015 2:04:12am
    
    Barsnax I'll drink to your summary and add that the government can spy on their own too, just encase they are thinking of another Spill motion.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - mt_syd:
    
    20 Mar 2015 10:46:03am
    
    The big joke is that anyone who wishes to avoid scrutiny can do so extremely easily.
    
    This metadata retention will treat everyone as potential criminals, meanwhile the actual criminals will just use one of the many easily accessible ways of bypassing data retention.
    
    A great big tax on using mobile phones and the internet is what it amounts to.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - aeuc:
      
      20 Mar 2015 12:14:14pm
      
      Dead right. Bypassing the metadata laws is easy for anyone who knows how. Already more than 50% of Internet traffic is Vitual Private Network such as airline ticketing and similar that has no metadata except for a couple of IPs. Terrorists can do the same just as any of us can. They probably already are. The instructions come with Windows and with modems.
      
      Imagine ISPs trying to keep all the packet headers. A single private proxy in a country that has no retention laws and Bob's your uncle.
      
      This is NOT about terrorists, it's about spying on our own population.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- Jay Somasundaram:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:34:49pm
  
  Back to Orwell's prediction in 1984, that we need to fear government more than terrorist groups.
  
  Or consider what FBI Director Hoover did. Already our security agencies lack adequate safeguards.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Aussie Sutra:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:57:36pm
  
  I cannot in good faith vote Green as they are pro unlimited population expansion. So I will look for an independent and I will be very active in promoting that solution on social media, as we all should be.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Crow:
    
    20 Mar 2015 9:38:38am
    
    Can you please point me to where in their population policy they push for unlimited expansion? Ive been looking but cant see it anywhere.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Crow:
    
    20 Mar 2015 9:38:41am
    
    Can you please point me to where in their population policy they push for unlimited expansion? Ive been looking but cant see it anywhere.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - graazt:
    
    20 Mar 2015 10:52:43am
    
    They're one of the few parties that want to limit immigration.
    
    Perhaps you can inform yourself of actual policy platforms before voting?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- rumpole:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:01:54pm
  
  "If this goes through the senate which it probably will, I'll be voting either Greens or Independents in the federal election..."
  
  So will I, Labor will not get my first preference again.
  
  I wonder where in the world you can live these days without being spied on. Governments everywhere seem to be falling in line with the arch spymasters, the US.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- donkeyvoter:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:20:07pm
  
  You are absolutely correct, the governance of this country at a Federal level is indeed woeful, surely amongst the worst of any 'democratic' developed nation. And unfortunately the electorate rates as amongst the most compliant and complacent which results in these sort of infringements to our civil liberties.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Zackdog:
    
    20 Mar 2015 10:27:14am
    
    At least we should not have to pay for the data collection storage as the nsa already collects all of the Australians personal data already, that should save the government some money shouldn't it.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Asceptic:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:29:49pm
  
  That would seem to be the message, thank Shorten for this.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- ingenuous:
  
  19 Mar 2015 9:45:15pm
  
  Chubblo, I don't get it either. Labor will wring political points from something trivial like petrol taxes (that obviously should have had bipartisan support), but they'll step back and wave through the worst legislation ever drafted in Australia!
  
  It really is an Alice in Wonderland time here. None of the rules of logic apply. Huge caterpillars sitting on giant mushrooms are writing our laws.
  
  Hey, Labor! I know at least some under-minion will be reading these articles. Wake up and pay some attention! This is appalling anti-citizen legislation! Get opposing! This is exactly the sort of stuff you *should* oppose!
  
  The ends do not justify the means. And that would be if the "ends" even existed! We won't be any safer, we will just be more exposed, both to corruption and to hackers.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- MJMI:
  
  19 Mar 2015 9:48:20pm
  
  Totally agree. You could not slip a sheet of tissue paper between the stances of the two major parties on this totally unjustified, unwarranted and unnecessary legislation.
  
  Last election I chose not to vote because I wanted neither Rudd nor Abbott as PM. I suspect I won't want either of the two leaders contending the next election. So I may choose not to vote again.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Someguyyouknow:
  
  20 Mar 2015 12:03:14am
  
  Been doing that for the last half dozen elections. At least I will have some company on the next.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- micovski:
  
  20 Mar 2015 6:34:00am
  
  I will never vote for either major party ever again.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Peter of Melbourne:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:09:33am
  
  good onya chubblo
  
  greens/labor were all for pushing conjobs internet filter on the people of this nation as well... guess you will be supporting that since you are opposed to those of the teaparty's invasion of our privacy.
  
  the tea party or the communist party those are the only choices open to the people of this nation. there is no difference between the labor/greens and the liberal/nationals, all of them act more as dictators than democrats as they force their limited vested interest policies on the people of this nation.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Ben Nallay:

19 Mar 2015 5:59:31pm

"how on earth..."

Yeah well it's like this actually, we don't go in for beheadings all that much down here where I come from, that's why isn't it?

Reply Alert moderator
- bobtonnor:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:39:20pm
  
  what on earth is that supposed to mean?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Ann:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:54:05pm
  
  Yes because if only the Australian government knew the communications of every single one of its citizens, the beheadings in Syria would have been averted. Duh.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- virgil:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:16:09pm
  
  Oh right, it's anti-beheading legislation.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- who_knew:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:17:54pm
  
  And that is what you need to focus on Ben when you go for a plum job you are perfect for in 5 years and don't get it......a job you would have got it if your employer did not have access to data which indicated a back injury 3 years back, a bout of depression with it and some sessions with a drug counsellor due to painkiller addiction. You are fine now of course, all fixed, good as gold. But "you are a risk sorry mate, we are going with our second choice, he watches a bit of porn but that's healthy, nothing else on the slate".
  
  And then you go to change health insurers.....
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Wil:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:57:34pm
  
  Yeah, well, it's like...great come back. Except none of this idiotic laws will stop beheadings or any other ridiculous fear mongering paranoia actually occurring.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Shayne O:
  
  19 Mar 2015 10:22:26pm
  
  Except that theres no evidence at all that these schemes actually work. The UK has had a system like this for a while, and research has shown that it hasn't been even remotely effective. Why? Because cops/Asio/etc have *always* been able to get this info with just a court order. Removing the court order just lets them look at a bunch of innocent people too. The problem is, innocent people don't behead. But they might be sending naughty messages to the wife, and that boys and girls is none of the governments business.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- I think I think:
  
  19 Mar 2015 10:50:31pm
  
  What's wrong with the current system?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Someguyyouknow:
  
  20 Mar 2015 12:04:48am
  
  How does being a country that abhors such actions lead to a draconian police state
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Good Grief:

19 Mar 2015 6:00:10pm

I vaguely remember the "before time", when entertainment meant going out, socializing meant talking to another face to face, and secrets meant things kept in your closet and not in your history or cookies cache.

Funny coming from a guy who deals with technology for his career. Never would I have thought that we have come so far so quickly that our identity is now ingrained into what we do on a HMI (Human-Machine Interface), that even the thought of governmental intervention becomes an infringement of privacy.

Perhaps it's because most users never fully grasp the culpability of their actions online, perhaps it's the luxury of becoming accustomed of remaining anonymous. What I do know is that if another Drum article was demanding on curbing online bullying and want the government to intervene, then this demand can't coexist with the privacy that is demanded in this article.

Reply Alert moderator
- ingenuous:
  
  19 Mar 2015 9:50:34pm
  
  Are you suggesting that mass citizen surveillance is an appropriate response to online bullying? Deleting rude posts isn't enough then? We need a half a billion dollar per year privacy destroying monster database to handle bullying?
  
  Please say you are pulling my leg.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- I think I think:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:32:30am
  
  Sure they can. You don't need to keep everybody's data for two years to target an individual bully. That is a silly conclusion that you have drawn.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Pete:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:54:31am
  
  The demand to curb online bullying and keep privacy at the same time can perfectly co-exist. With online bullying, you have straightforward identification of the sender, and the material, because you receive it. You also get the police involved, who get a warrant based on your accusation. Equating this with an incompatibility with privacy (as defined by what this legislation will remove) is a false dichotomy.
  The thing that really gets me is that when challenged to identify real examples of how this legislation would have changed (not helped) outcomes in criminal matters, the security agencies come up blank. Sure, they sometimes allude to things they can't talk about (an Orwellian argument), but there are almost no examples. Nope, what they're after is the ability to go on fishing expeditions, and like good workers/public servants, advocate anything that makes their day easier. This metadata legislation is one such thing - no pesky warrants, less old-style investigation and footwork and the excitement of a big system that apes their US counterparts. All this in an environment where they have had unprecedented increases in staffing and funding. This legislation is what happens when fear is exploited by a power mad bureaucracy, and without sunset clauses it's a dream come true for these bloated agencies. At least the government has reduced the number of agencies who can access this data - the idea of Parks departments and local councils being able to get hold of your information was absurd to begin with and a testimony to how far these outfits will go to enforce their laws, although I haven't seen the list of those who won't be getting access.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Good Grief:
    
    20 Mar 2015 10:16:10am
    
    @pete, ingenous, and I think I think
    
    What I can say is that the arguments you guys have presented are idealistic almost bordering on wishful thinking. It's almost in line with the people who argue that one's liberties and freedoms can coexist with a policing force.
    
    You might say, "yeah I can do what I please and the cops catch nasty people in balaclavas robbing banks and running off with bags of money". But we know the reality is not that clear cut. Implementation of security meant security for all, and not just your personal taste on the security-freedom balance. You'd find people like yourself being arrested for drunken bar squabbles, get stopped on the road for an alcohol test, getting caught by a speeding camera, and even stopped and searched because you appear suspicious. Today, the policing takes the next step which is to retain our online information again as a measure to protect us. So if you think that online bullying prevention only stops at online trolls and mean high school kids, think again. Anybody who feels threatened or harassed by your opinions, regardless of whether you intend it to be a constructive criticism or a malicious attack, can easily constitute as bullying.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Andrew C:

19 Mar 2015 6:00:18pm

Absolutely correct, absolutely terrifying, absolutely disgraceful.

This is pretty much the death of any semblance of "freedom" that we've had left for the past decade or so.

I guess I will just have to employ an encrypted proxy server with anonymous IP addresses and no data retention. Even if they are lying and they do retain the data, I'd feel safer with the uzbek or Czech governments/corporations having access to my data rather than the Australian ones. There's only a chance that the foreign governments will misuse the data, whereas the Australian government is guaranteed to misuse it! (not to mention the total and absolute destruction that will be dealt to society by the avalanche of disclosure to be wrought by litigation).

Why bother having a family court dispute when you can destroy your former spouses reputation and careers by accessing then anonymously "leaking" select bits of information about their online habits.

downloaded a movie illegally, like 99% of the population? uh oh! You've got 4 years, or however long the ISP's decide to keep the info, before it MIGHT get forgotten.

Reply Alert moderator
- Todd:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:53:58pm
  
  I, too, will be using a VPN to protect myself.
  
  But what about the the millions of Australians who are not so savvy? To my mind, it is these people who need protection.
  
  This policy will ruin people's lives. As you said, marriage breakdowns and other situations where one party may want to discredit another. I would have thought politicians would realize that the ability for their opponents to conduct "smear campaigns" will be greatly increased also. But I genuinely look forward to the ay when some Labor or Liberal politician has their life ruined by such a campaign. But I fear that it will be the Greens or an LDP member that cops it, due to their opposition to here laws.
  
  In that regard, not keeping the data could be worse. Say, for instance, someone had dealings with, say, someone who provides sexual services on a wholly unrelated matter. If one just looks at the metadata, without seeing the full email, they could conclude that they were contacting that person for the purposes of seeking those services. Keep in mind, many sex workers "moonlight" in that industry when it is not their main occupation. I am sure everyone has heard of young students doing this to pay their way through University. Or, say a concerned family member of friend that contacts a drug rehab centre to seek information to help an addict they know. Again, without the actual data, it could be inferred that the person has a drug problem themselves. The list is endless.
  
  These laws WILL ruin lives.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
I think I think:

19 Mar 2015 6:06:36pm

Ahh Labor, you bunch of gutless hacks. This is why I and many others will not be voting for you at the next election. I sincerely hope that both major parties slide into oblivion sooner rather than later. They no longer serve us.

Reply Alert moderator
- barsnax:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:19:32pm
  
  When it comes to political cowardice and self serving legislation this takes the cake. The Labor party has lost any chance of me voting for them federally.
  
  Bill Shorten you are a disgrace.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - HPH:
    
    19 Mar 2015 6:37:29pm
    
    Do you think they are any different at the state level ?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      20 Mar 2015 9:33:23am
      
      One name. Campbell Newman.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    19 Mar 2015 6:55:22pm
    
    Agreed. I already didn't vote for Labor, but I preferenced them ahead of some of the really wacky parties. Not any more, the Sex and Radio Party will be getting more of my vote.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - QT.:
    
    19 Mar 2015 7:15:23pm
    
    Shorten and the Labor clown car have always been gutless wonders, with the only tune he can play being "At least I'm not Tony". And this latest event merely reinforces it.
    
    At this rate I suspect they soon will want to pass laws requiring a device known as a 'Telescreen' in all places of work and residence. Labor and Liberals would cheerfully agree to it.
    
    After all, it would be good for 'national security', right?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Mitor the Bold:
      
      20 Mar 2015 8:59:14am
      
      "Shorten and the Labor clown car have always been gutless wonders, with the only tune he can play being "At least I'm not Tony"
      
      Tony got in by saying "at least we're not Labor", so Bill has learned well, Grasshopper, from the Master. Abbott didn't win - Rudd lost. Actually, we all lost, and it seems like we're going to keep losing for the foreseeable future.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Jazzy:
    
    19 Mar 2015 10:57:54pm
    
    come to life.Too right Barsnax. As many sensible people have pointed out, the real criminals and terrorists have moved or will move to the dark net where law enforcement agencies are as good as blind. This legislation is purely an attack on our privacy. Plain and simple.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Zackdog:
      
      20 Mar 2015 10:31:15am
      
      100% correct ! to what end ?
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- rockpicker:
  
  19 Mar 2015 7:20:10pm
  
  In all honesty though, if Shorten voted it down, the Murdoch/Mordor (sorry JRR T) empire would be calling him a security risk. It is our own fault for following the bulldust of Howard on Iraq etc and still voting for the worthless toad. Not to excuse Shorten, but he is a symptom not a disease.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Pete:
    
    20 Mar 2015 8:57:58am
    
    While it's tempting to look for a Murdoch conspiracy everywhere, I think you'll find all media outlets are very opposed to this legislation, given its implications for journalists.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Crow:
    
    20 Mar 2015 9:41:32am
    
    It would be better to take the hit, vote against it and explain to the public why you did so.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Crow:
    
    20 Mar 2015 9:41:37am
    
    It would be better to take the hit, vote against it and explain to the public why you did so.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Todd:
  
  19 Mar 2015 7:36:28pm
  
  To be fair to Labor, they are thinking "hey, this will split off some Lib voters AND we then get the same ability handed to us in 18 months time." I am one such Lib voter. I do not care what you say about the culpability of an opposition allowing a bad piece of legislation through, the party that drafts it and puts it up in the first place HAS to be held MORE culpable.
  Also, Labor have always been more about the collective than the individual. The Abbott Liberals, however, have turned the Party upside down. It is the Liberals who are now the party of Big Government.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Todd:
  
  19 Mar 2015 9:35:35pm
  
  Agreed.
  
  Vote for the Liberal Democrats if you value freedom.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Never you mind:
  
  19 Mar 2015 9:39:54pm
  
  100% agree
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Tomokatu:
  
  20 Mar 2015 7:51:33am
  
  Except, I think etc, it's not a Labor legislation. The initiative came from the Liberals doing what their corporate and US masters want.
  
  I'm disappointed in the ALP too, BUT!! I'm aware also that politically, Labor cannot allow themselves to be wedged on an issue of "terrorism & national security". The Libs have the majority of the unthinking general public with them on any question they can paint as a security issue, even when, like this one, it isn't.
  
  It doesn't matter that nobody, anywhere in the world, has actually proven that mining metadata has been useful in solving or preventing crime because that's only a fact and facts don't matter in propaganda.
  
  The only hope we, the populace had, was if the media had got on board with a proper campaign against this intrusion but they only looked after their own bums and left the rest of us hanging out as prime targets.
  
  But I also understand your political need to blame Labor for anything and everything.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - I think I think:
    
    20 Mar 2015 8:42:32am
    
    How would they be wedged on this legislation? It doesn't have general support. They are gutless. They had the power to block this legislation, they should be providing us an alternative. I also understand your need to put lipstick on a pig. Facing the most incompetent bunch of clowns in government, Labor have hardly set the world on fire. We need better than what they can offer.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Mitor the Bold:
      
      20 Mar 2015 9:10:06am
      
      While I agree shorten has bottled it on this one, what choice do we have next election? The guys who made the legislation or the guys who didn't oppose it? It's lose:lose for us however we vote. But we have to vote, so do we vote for the guy pulling the trigger or the guy who could have knocked the gun from his hand but chose not to?
      
      This law is like vitamins. There will be an incident after the laws are enacted, people will say "this draconian law has not stopped terrorism", the government will say "there would have been many more like this without the laws". Keep taking the vitamins.
      
      There's no way back from this, excepting if millions use cloaking technology that makes the law irrelevant. I certainly will/already do. I hope others will get it soon by default on their browsers or as an option via their ISP. If I were the CEO of an ISP I would offer it gratis - it would make my job so much easier.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Zackdog:
      
      20 Mar 2015 9:38:39am
      
      You are right ! We do need something better, but who is going to stand up and help us the people ? Like cowards in the dark they passed this at 2 am or was it 4 am in the wee hours of the morning Under cover of darkness, when evil roams the night behind closed doors.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- Mark James:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:45:54am
  
  I think I think,
  
  Imagine Labor opposed the bill and, months out from the 2016 election, some 'terrorist incident' or some close call.
  
  The Coalition, assisted by the Murdoch press, will raise the roof, portraying Shorten as a "Friend of ISIS" and Labor as the party supporting terrorism.
  
  Guaranteed, if Labor opposed this bill, they would lose the 2016 election as they could not possibly withstand the propaganda assault that would ensue.
  
  By supporting the bill, they'll still lose a good percentage of votes anyway, but not as much as they would otherwise.
  
  And yes, it would be good if Labor stuck to principle on this. But to what ends? The bill will go through anyway, so nothing will be gained. All they would have achieved would be to hand Australians another 3 years of disastrous, divisive Coaltion government.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Prime Lemur:
    
    20 Mar 2015 9:15:04am
    
    When it comes to justice, liberty and security, you must have principles.
    
    I change who I vote for each election. Or more precisely, each party gets a clean slate after an election. Labor has sought, since the election, to mimic the Coalitions pathetic tactic (when it was in Opposition) of just being a negative mouthpiece. And so far, just like the Coalition, they've made it up as they go along. They've been unable to put any pressure on the government, whatsoever. All the pressure on the Coalition has been of their own making. Rather than learning lessons from having lost government, they seem entirely intent on maintaining the policies that saw them dumped.
    
    In their six years in government, they did not cut on iota of government handouts and concession to the middle class and wealthy. Their NDIS and NBN policies were exactly the kind of smart, nation-building reform we needed (and still need, incidently), but because they didn't want to upset anyone, by taking money off them that they didn't need, they just left both plans unfunded, and gave the Coalition the perfect narrative for election. The MRRT was another example of the same thing. What kind of genius introduces a tax on windfall profits of mining companies, gets considerable support from the electorate, but is so afraid of criticism, they then weaken and hobble it so much, it costs money to run it? My God!
    
    Labor did it to themselves, because they're no longer sure who they represent ... and as a result, their poll-driven spinelessness sees us where we are today ... and they are still exactly like that ... hoping government will just fall into their lap. Not good enough.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      20 Mar 2015 10:21:32am
      
      Thanks PM, and I agree principles are important, but principles in politics are not the be all and end all.
      
      Off the top of my head, I'd say the only mainstream party with solid principles are the Greens. However, by being principled in holding out for a better ETS, for example, the Greens effectively caused the collapse of any bipartisanship on the ETS, which gave us Tony Abbott and the introduction and eventual repeal of the carbon tax.
      
      A less principled stance, and we'd most likely have an ETS today.
      
      I agree with you completely on the timidity of the previous Labor government. This was partly of their own making due to the leadership schemozzle. But I don't think you take into account what they were up against. On the back of the GFC, the had a feral, populist opposition backed all the way by the dominant media player and a cashed-up resources sector.
      
      What would have been the point, for instance, of standing on principle for the MRRT if doing so mean gifting the 2010 election to Abbott, who would have ripped it up anyway? Labor would also have thrown away any chance of pricing CO2, of introducing a more equitable education system, of pushing for an NDIS.
      
      It's politics. And politics is necessarily about compromise and doing what it takes to achieve a long-term outcome.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Todd:
    
    20 Mar 2015 11:36:14am
    
    Mark, there is no way in the World Abbott will be re-elected.
    
    This is where Labor are weak. Just like when Gillard fatally caved in to the Greens over the Carbon Tax. The Greens were never going to side with the coalition and she should have known that.
    
    Labor must know that the, under Abbott, the coalition are just keeping the Government benches warm for Labor.
    
    And how can Labor lose votes over a COALITION policy. Labor would have had my vote sewn up if they had have blocked this - at least my second preference - my first preference would be for the liberal democrats as they are the only party that values freedom.
    
    Hopefully, I will not be allowed to vote in the next election - unless US citizens are allowed to vote.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Bigbamboo:

19 Mar 2015 6:15:28pm

It is what I expect of the two old parties.

Looks like good old pen and paper letter writing will make a comeback...

Reply Alert moderator
- Rancid Remark:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:36:12pm
  
  Well, at least the post offices will be happy but the trees will not be. More envelopes and paper again.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Shalashaska:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:41:03pm
  
  Carrier pigeons everywhere!
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Ann:
  
  19 Mar 2015 6:56:55pm
  
  More likely we will just see a huge upsurge in Australian traffic on proxies and dark networks.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- virgil:
  
  19 Mar 2015 8:14:59pm
  
  That'd be good for Australia Post anyway.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
CJ22:

19 Mar 2015 6:54:12pm

Do you think every ALP & Lib MP agrees with this? Do you think every ALP or Lib MP considered ALL the ramifications of voting for this? Do you think terrorists will now continue to use emails and visit websites via channels where that data is stored or will they develop and use the alternatives already available?

Reply Alert moderator
Aussie Sutra:

19 Mar 2015 6:56:22pm

It's pure fascism. But that is the pathway we are on at the moment. Time to throw out any politician who supports it.

Reply Alert moderator
Mark:

19 Mar 2015 6:58:55pm

The first thing to note about the debate regarding the use of meta data is that our cyber privacy has been under attack and the Government is a long way down on the list of concerns.
If you think I am joking just take a moment to consider the following with reference to your own experiences with the internet;

a) The first thing that all IT experts advise you to do before you get onto the internet is get yourself a robust Firewall and ensure that it is kept up to date at all times to prevent your computer from being compromised.

b) The second thing that you do is password protect as many of your systems for the same reason that you got the firewall. There are a lot of nefarious people out there and the evidence is that they are by far the most pressing and dangerous threat that your data will ever face.

With reference to both "a" and "b" above it should be noted at this point that most people would be aware from painful experience is that you will fail to keep your privacy and data safe. Some people will fail a little and be annoyed at the imposition inflicted on them, and some people will fail a lot and be devastated by what occurs and it won't be the government doing the wrecking.

c) The people that the government are targeting with this legislation for are killing people, innocent people, honest people and for the most part muslim people. Does this need to be explained. In the event that the government uses the information for a purpose not related to the hunting down of these purveyors of harm and violence and we think that it will impede our honest enjoyment of the internet then the laws can be changed and if the government does not heed these changes it can be dragged before the courts. This, sadly, is not generally what happens with hackers. In their community some of them are even considered heroes for damaging your privacy and security and expect as a result to be feted, hailed and excluded from any attempt to define the mints of their invasion of your privacy.

d) Anyone wo has tapped into the discussion regarding "big data" aspects of Information Technology would be aware that the information that large companies already collect on every aspect of your internet use makes what the government is requesting look like amateur hour at the local Dick Smiths franchise.

Le's be honest on a day to day basis it is not the government that we are trying to keep out , it is the legions of random hacker netzions who think nothing of invading your life and equipment for fun and profit and have at their disposal a dizzying array of cyber tools to deliberately mess with your life, privacy and data. Anyone who has ever sat behind a computer keyboard know this to be true. In point of fact I am willing to bet that most of the people who fall into this category are firmly on the side of those opposed to the government's legislation least it one

Reply Alert moderator
- I think I think:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:48:10am
  
  What a load of rubbish. If the government is targetting killers, why are they collecting my data?
  
  Your analogies about online security are also bogus. Currently, I can prevent my data being mined if I choose to.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Prime Lemur:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:52:15am
  
  Mark, well argued my friend.
  
  But ... you cannot rely on the argument that agencies didn't already have access to this information. Absolutely, they do. Its just that they require judicial oversight, a warrant. These days, warrants are quick and easy to obtain. All that is required is to satisfy the judge there's evidence to be found of a crime. This has been around for ages, it works, and the burden to satisfy an *independent* person is a sensible safeguard.
  
  The fact there are other agents (companies, hackers, activists, individuals) out there, seeking to use our information in an improper way isn't any kind of mitigating factor in the governments favour. We don't need additional burdens here!
  
  The real worry for me is not the actions of our present government (oh, I'm worried about them, but ...) its the future government or agency, not as keen on civil liberties. Imagine, for a moment, if the utterly corrupt Bjelke-Petersen government was around today. They used the Queensland Police Force like the Soviets used the KGB, keeping large files on innocent citizens exercising their democratic rights.
  
  There has been very little transparency from the government as to who requested these laws, why, and what alternatives were explored. Considering that, at the early stage, the Attorney-General and other ministers seemed utterly incapable of telling us what metadata was. My God! They want us to trust them, with our privacy and rights, and they cannot even tell us what it was they wanted? So ... where did the legislation come from. Isn't that government's responsibility? Or was it abrogated to someone else, who has no interest in balancing security with citizen's interests? Really?
  
  Then we have the Opposition who, to avoid opening up a wedge (in other words, to make themselves more electable) has failed to provide any scrutiny, and failed to ensure *all* of the amendments agreed to were included.
  
  So, I contend that this legislation: 1) was unneeded, as adequate, balanced access is already available, 2) was passed without proper scrutiny for political expedience, 3) was never drafted by the people we pay to balance security against liberty, and 4) may open up an array of unintended, far reaching (but not unforeseeable) consequences.
  
  We've been screwed ... by those who should know better.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
stephen jones:

19 Mar 2015 7:01:56pm

But the internet is only our expansive communicative range anyway.
I only say things on it which may be of a private nature, but that, if it becomes public, not much is at stake.

Just what can happen if anyone knows my life ?
What can anyone do ; they may sneer (I probably don't know them) they might respond and insult me (I'll delete them) and then what I was brought up to think and feel from a good schooling will refute the insistence of common knowledge : a sensitive person (and we are all the time becoming more sensitive, and that so many take their own lives is substance that social factors of isolation must first take into account the different and changing values of our young) might find a thing to do which is fulfilling - the kid/bomber in Syria is an example - he might be a frame within which the individual that cannot adapt to a self-perception will take it out on what he thinks is a wrong.

There is an outer an inner life which is ours, and the Internet is all the other.
It is not our interiority ; it does not explain or understand things.
We use it like our letters and postcards ; maybe you can yell instead ?

Reply Alert moderator
Econ:

19 Mar 2015 7:02:08pm

This Government is the worst we have ever had, if this law was necessary it should be presented by a Government we can trust.

The ALP should not have supported it !

Reply Alert moderator
Patrick:

19 Mar 2015 7:07:52pm

Just wait till people realise all their private information can be subpoenaed by the courts under the discovery laws for most court matters including divorce, compensation cases and most other legal disputes and claims. The lawyers must be falling over themselves laughing.

Reply Alert moderator
Phil:

19 Mar 2015 7:09:35pm

Michael, I am sure you understand that the information technology has absolutely destroyed any notion of privacy. Everything about you; your personal details, your spending habits and details, your whereabouts at any time day or night, etc. is freely being sold between interested parties for a small fee.

Only recently I read that Coles may give lower car insurance premiums to people who don't buy alcohol or buy petrol after 10:00pm etc. i.e. the personal details available to them through your purchases at their stores, linked to your fly-by cards, which has all your personal details.

Every detail about you is already known, stored in someone's computer and freely available. I am talking about the personal details held by private data management companies over which we have little or no control whatsoever. Therefore, why are we obsessed only about minimal information available to our governments, of which we still have some control.

Frankly Michael, I find position of many of our 'civil libertarians' on the current legislation somewhat puzzling. Don't they understand what is going on in the current information technology age?! Where are they when the very notion of privacy is absolutely ignored by the social media and other forms of information technology?!

Reply Alert moderator
- I think I think:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:51:09am
  
  You can currently choose to protect your data. You can't under this legislation. Get it now?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Clicky The Robot:
  
  20 Mar 2015 10:09:17am
  
  I pay cash. I don't use reward cards. Therefore nobody tracks what I buy.
  
  "Therefore, why are we obsessed only about minimal information available to our governments, of which we still have some control."
  
  Wrong. You have control over data you provide to businesses, you MUST supply your data to government. Businesses only care about marketing to you. They do not have almost unquestionable power to surveil, arrest or otherwise coerce you.
  
  And it's not "minimal" information. A former head of the NSA has stated metadata is far more valuable than content in what it tells about you.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- graazt:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:01:07am
  
  Two wrongs don't make a right. I would expect my government to try and curtail the corporate invasion of online privacy. Not collude in it.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
sleepykarly:

19 Mar 2015 7:11:53pm

"You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone."

Oh, if only we had been more patient with the Democrats! A third party that was reasonable!

Jesus said 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' But in reality, anyone who tries to steer a sensible middle course gets creamed by the fundamentalists on both sides. The two Big Parties have trapped us in confrontation rather than intelligent discussion. Because that's the game that suits them. And if any new party tries to appeal to the broad centre, you can bet your boots that both sides will wedge them, just like they did with the Democrats.

Unless, of course, we grow our own brains. But that is not likely!

Reply Alert moderator
Ben Nallay:

19 Mar 2015 7:16:38pm

If anyone beheads me they've got another thing coming! I'll write to my local representative that's what I'll do.

Reply Alert moderator
the yank:

19 Mar 2015 7:24:48pm

we should all be concerned about this issue.

Remember the reason's restrictions were put in place regarding how and what law enforcement agencies were able to do is because they are human they make mistakes.

Nothing has changed in fact if anything police are getting away with more and more infringements of people's rights without recourse for the offended.

The fool Abbott can say death cult all he wants and he can say people who are arrested are guilty before their trial, as long as he says it in parliament, all he wants. That does not make it fact.

Abbott is driving a wedge between society and Muslims and we are all going to pay for his nonsense.

From a government that wanted to give voice to bigots to one of acting like a bigot, who would have thought he could have made that jump so quickly and with so little opposition.

Reply Alert moderator
xstephen:

19 Mar 2015 7:27:28pm

I remain quite relaxed about this legislation and don't see real issues. The fact that our representatives have decided in favour of it isn't a conspiracy of some secretive Government. It is an assessment of our representatives that it is what is required in a changing world of easy global communication.

Reply Alert moderator
- Filz:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:21:52am
  
  Your trust in our political masters is breathtaking.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - xstephen:
    
    20 Mar 2015 12:22:15pm
    
    Yes, because they come and then they go. They are just people interested in politics and elected to represent people. They do not generally have a job for life. As far as I can see democracy has served me pretty well.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- tc21:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:36:47am
  
  And if ever there was a dictator to govern Australia then all they need to do is access your data and if you have done something they don't like then they may round you up and mass shoot you just like they do in North Korea.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- graazt:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:03:04am
  
  Not all our representatives. Just the big two parties. The same guys that voted against a Federal ICAC.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Prime Lemur:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:06:18am
  
  Xstephen, feel free to ignore the hyperboly. I can absolutely understand people's unease, but its better to concentrate on the "known" than the "possible".
  
  Two real issues you should be concerned about are 1) the unintended consequences, and 2) expansion and misuse by a future government.
  
  These two risks are completely unknown, and largely unforeseeable.
  
  While most people concentrate on the (data) retention regime, the real question is: was obtaining a warrant for said data such a burden that we needed to do away with it? Warrants, in the modern age, are quick, straightforward and have a low threshold to satisfy a judge. Our whole system of government, law and administration has checks and balances. We do this as a precaution. Allowing governments to bypass these controls should require a very high burden of proof in the public interest. I don't believe the alternatives have been explored.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - xstephen:
    
    20 Mar 2015 12:25:53pm
    
    I do accept the risks for the future. I also accept the risks and cost associated with trying to deal with modern day criminals. I am quite sure we'll have legal challenges/issues arising and the laws will change over time but I consider that pretty normal as I doubt anyone can foresee all the implications of legislation and how it means something different when challenged to that intended.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Oi Mate:

19 Mar 2015 7:36:48pm

The reason no one has put up "a rationally argued case" is because there isnt one. Plain and simple.

Reply Alert moderator
Bradfordlad:

19 Mar 2015 7:37:34pm

I may feel a bit more comfortable about this if Brandis could explain how this legislation would have caught Man Haron Monis.
Or this dopey kid who just blew himself up in Syria for no apparent reason.

Reply Alert moderator
al:

19 Mar 2015 7:49:32pm

I don't understand the confected outrage by many posters on the Drum.

Half of them would have gladly embraced a socialist/communist state at some stage. Those examples of left wing dictatorships in our history/present, were shining examples of controlling regimes. Proper police states that controlled everything.

Yet as soon as both parties, along with our security and law enforcement, advocate new laws that address modern communication habits, out jump our luvvy lefties in a puerile attempt to construct non-problems.

Reply Alert moderator
- Nacnud:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:39:42am
  
  So we must burn the village to save it?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- graazt:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:06:49am
  
  No surprise then that the ALP supports these measures (having proposed similar measures 3 years ago).
  
  What happened to the so-called small government, so-called liberal Liberal party eh? Seem to be a bunch of big-government authoratarians now.
  
  There's nothing liberal about mass-surveillance.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
ricky:

19 Mar 2015 7:52:30pm

This country started its life as a prison - is anyone surprised that the government still sees us that way?

Reply Alert moderator
hairy nosed wombat:

19 Mar 2015 7:55:58pm

It is difficult to explain just how angry I am about this. We need to get this current generation of politicians back under control. Or just get rid of them.

As our politicians sink lower and lower, they are becoming more and more powerful.

In fact, what we need is publicly available metadata on all of our politicians. I should be able to look up exactly who George Brandis spoke to last Wednesday night. There would clearly be enormous public benefit - it would greatly enhance transparency and reduce political corruption.

Reply Alert moderator
- Clicky The Robot:
  
  20 Mar 2015 10:34:31am
  
  I agree. As one of their employers I'd like to keep track of them.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
virgil:

19 Mar 2015 8:18:55pm

Um, can this metadata surveillance be used to restrict media piracy?

Reply Alert moderator
- graazt:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:08:32am
  
  Yes, a little bit, not much.
  
  And at tax-payer and ISP customer expense of course. Gotta help those companies keep up their profit margins.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Kismet:

19 Mar 2015 8:22:41pm

Do you folks really understand what metadata is and what the proposed laws are all about? From the comments and the article itself, I think not. Your data is already out there in the public domain thanks to Companies collecting and selling same over the last few years and it is far more detailed than what metadata can provide. Grow up and do some in depth research before you engage your minds on something you know so little about.

Reply Alert moderator
- Filz:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:29:59am
  
  "Your data is already out there in the public domain..."
  
  Generally speaking, no it's not. You can't access my information from say Coles or Woolies or anyone else, unless you're prepared to spend big money and spend ages ploughing through metadata. It would be quicker and cheaper simply to follow someone for a week to see where they go and what they do. (It's called "surveillance" and police and security use it all the time).
  
  This legislation is totally superfluous to policing needs, as there are already adequate provisions to electronically eavesdrop on a potential terrorist or bulk copyright infringer. You only have to show probable cause. Not any more.
  
  If Brandis even knew what metadata is, some of us would be slightly less unhappy, but not much.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Patrick:

19 Mar 2015 8:29:27pm

Just wait till people realise all their private information can be subpoenaed from the mega data by the courts under the discovery laws for most legal matters including divorce, compensation cases and most other legal disputes and claims. The lawyers must be falling over themselves laughing.

Reply Alert moderator
Tony:

19 Mar 2015 8:33:18pm

Good article, informative. Do question why journalists have an exception. Doesnt quite sit right, why are they special, that means they can do anything in their personal time too.
Maybe I want to protect a whistle-blower too. Will my call to the journalist be subject to access.

Reply Alert moderator
Asceptic:

19 Mar 2015 8:36:21pm

Stop putting a time stamp on our comments please.

Reply Alert moderator
saline:

19 Mar 2015 8:36:37pm

I am alarmed at the ease with which every Tom, dick and Harry can get a go at my info.

They could at least put the stuff at arms length from everyone who wants.

It gives me the horrors that politicians can get closed to it. Imagine contacting the office of a shadow Minister! What would the Minister's office make of that?

If ever something needs the control of a Commissioner, this does.

Reply Alert moderator
tc21:

19 Mar 2015 8:38:25pm

In an attempt to look strong, Labor look spineless in allowing this disgraceful act. It is not about having done something wrong or not. Imagine this information being in the wrong hands. If there was ever another wicked dictator, they would only have to look through people's data to begin their ethnic data. This is a very scary law that is about to be passed, people should be marching in the streets!

Reply Alert moderator
who_knew:

19 Mar 2015 8:39:43pm

I have become aware of an underlying lack of faith in the privacy of anything I do online for the last couple of years. If I am going to look up something controversial or something I would not like others to know I look up, I find myself hoping that it will not go against me in a few years time when my "wrap sheet" is pulled as a matter of course.....during my call up for micro-chipping perhaps. It is nothing less than anxiety about the fact that someone is storing everything I do online.......and now, the State and the Market will have legal access to it. How positively splendid. Thinking of cancelling my internet and going back to snail mail...and the bliss of semi ignorance ......and the absence of the feeling that someone is downloading my life whenever I turn on my computer.

Reply Alert moderator
APedant:

19 Mar 2015 8:44:57pm

You say "Hang on, I could be jailed for two years for saying that a warrant has not been taken out on a journalist's metadata?". This is probably not a mistake.

If someone regularly posts a notice saying that no warrant has been issued and then stops posting that notice it might be deduced that a warrant has been issued. This is known as a "warrant canary" and is sometimes done in the USA.

Reply Alert moderator
Bobimagee:

19 Mar 2015 8:59:20pm

As true believer I can't beleive this .... what was the hurry. I will bleed not voting labor. ?.. but this is step to far ......so dissapointed

Reply Alert moderator
Mitor the Bold:

19 Mar 2015 9:02:48pm

Like everything else with this government - it's an emergency! That's the best way to get through draconian measures that are trojan horses with other agendas. Fortunately, for the 'budget emergency' the panic has been somewhat debunked by none of it getting through Parliament, and yet the sky is still in the sky.

The 'beheading emergency' has allowed The Parties and our Dear Leaders to spy on us for their own ends and this time Parliament is as one. We might one day look back and realise that the death of two innocent people by a narcissist in a cafe was the least worst thing Man Haron Honis did to Australia.

From now on we'll never find out about anything bad, wrong, corrupt, dishonest or illegal our political leaders do. Who'd dare report such things?

For an advanced view on what this will mean, see the current sex abuse enquiry in the UK that shows how organised paedophilia in the 1970s amongst politicians, top-ranking policemen and judges was covered up, journalists threatened and children hushed-up or 'disappeared'. The Official Secrets Act was invoked to intimidate police and journalists from speaking about Cyril Smith for example, a prominent MP and prolific paedophile on the scale of Jimmy Saville, who was allowed to die twenty years later, unrepentant, still active and with his honour intact. When governments have the power to shut you up if you might embarrass them then they will shut you up. Well done George, nice one.

Reply Alert moderator
Trevor:

19 Mar 2015 9:15:46pm

So Michael, are you telling me that my internet service provider (and phone provider), isn't already keeping any information about me?

And they aren't already providing any of my online fingerprints to any other companies?

Then how come I can access who I have phoned and when?
Where is that data held?

How come I get bombarded with advertising and messages to do with websites I have visited months beforehand?
Who is keeping that information?

Reply Alert moderator
Blind Freddie:

19 Mar 2015 9:42:01pm

How could it come to this? Why did we not stop this.
Could we have ?

Reply Alert moderator
- Zackdog:
  
  20 Mar 2015 9:08:47am
  
  Edward Snowdon told us this would happen.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Never you mind:

19 Mar 2015 9:45:17pm

And when someone eventually hacks my personal information, how will I know WHO has WHAT information about me. What can I do about it.... Nothing! I feel violated just thinking about it. I will NEVER vote labor or liberal again as long as I live. They have proven again for the last time their contempt for Australians.

Reply Alert moderator
- Zackdog:
  
  20 Mar 2015 8:52:28am
  
  That is how I feel, I to will never vote labor or lnp ever again.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
UnKnown:

19 Mar 2015 9:58:35pm

I recommend a trial of 6 months where we record all the meta data of all the politicians. At the end of the 6 months it is all published so we, the people, can see what the meta data looks like.
Then, we the people, get to vote on allowing the system in, not letting it in or just continue the trial for a bit longer.

Reply Alert moderator
ardy:

19 Mar 2015 10:02:02pm

So Privacy is now a big thing is it? It was not such a big thing over the last 20 years when we gave away our privacy to invasive computer and communications companies, but now, because it is the government doing it and a right wing one at that - it's a big thing.

Makes me laugh how bloody stupid we all are.........This battle should have been fought in the early 90's.

Reply Alert moderator
beemer28:

19 Mar 2015 10:03:17pm

Well Mr Shorten, with your support of these metadata retention laws you have lost my vote in both houses, I'll vote Greens they are the only one's who seem to be standing up for the public's right to privacy. Along with the TPP Australia looks like it will be at the mercy of anyone who thinks they have a grievance with you, including corporations with government legislation. Now I know that both major parties are only interested in making things easier for big corporations I have little hope for the Australian peoples current living standards being upheld.

Reply Alert moderator
Avargo:

19 Mar 2015 10:05:13pm

Looks like Nick Xenophon will be our next Prime Minister.

Shorten has signed his and his Party's death knoll by allowing this bill to go through... as of course it looks like it will.

I happen to like Nick just now. I seriously hope he doesn't go all megalomaniacal once he becomes PM, that would annoy me very very much.

Reply Alert moderator
DethLok:

19 Mar 2015 10:09:09pm

Hmm, no protection for politicians?
This could be eye opening!!
Imagine the juicey info that will be leaked, who they associate with, when, where, etc.!
Googling "Metadata Paul Revere" and reading how simple it is to find out a huge amount of useful information from basic data is well worth it, as I'm sure few of the politicians understand what is now going to be done. To them, as well as us.

And no, I'm not voting for any party that supports this sad failure.

Reply Alert moderator
PhilB:

19 Mar 2015 10:30:14pm

Two can play at is game and fortunately for us, IT gurus are about a million miles ahead of the likes of slime ball Brandis and the many other lawyers who became career politicians. So I am actively researching VPN services so I can circumvent these ridiculous and draconian measures put in place by people who are more concerned about their their own hides than the good of the people who put them in power.

Reply Alert moderator
peggy7:

19 Mar 2015 10:31:21pm

I will never vote for either of the two major party's again, it will be the greens for me, I will encourage as many people as i can, to do the same.
god forbid what kind of world my grandchildren will live in.

Reply Alert moderator
Richard:

19 Mar 2015 11:31:21pm

I can only imagine that global governments have been infiltrated at a higher level by those who do not wish humanity to have freedom of expression, freedom of thought and democratic rights such as privacy and right to choose that our forefathers fought for.

Unless we fight for our rights, successive governments will progressively chip away at the freedoms we have taken for granted. Assuming this infiltration has permeated itself to the mainstream government representatives, voting in the other party will do very little and our preservation of rights and freedoms must start at the grassroots level.

As we have seen in the past time and time again, there is inevitable policy creep. We allow governments to introduce policies to 'protect us' - then those policies are expanded not to protect, but to control and restrict.

Who knows, in a decade when you go for a new job, the employer will perform a 'security check' to see what sites you've visited and what your meta data says about you and if you are the right 'cultural fit' based on your internet habits.

Worried yet? we should be.

Reply Alert moderator
toorightmate:

19 Mar 2015 11:36:36pm

Why the hell are journalists being exempted?
Are they trustworthy - or something?

Reply Alert moderator
- Nyrang:
  
  20 Mar 2015 10:59:40am
  
  Good question. It might be because journalists (and "Security") are the only ones left that pollies are still actually afraid of. (Efficient PR could usually take care of voters - most times.)
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Someguyyouknow:

19 Mar 2015 11:58:09pm

Welcome to the new world order, terrifying on a scale that would lave Orwell speechless.

It does seem obvious these laws are aimed more at copyright infringers and political dissenters than terrorists.

One concession, at least from my reading of the article, the pollies forgot to put in protection for their metadata. If a ex-spouse or employer can access this data, people or more likely political activist groups can access pollies data. Might help to keep them a bit more honest.

Reply Alert moderator
Submariner:

20 Mar 2015 12:00:54am

Tonight on Lateline Malcolm Turnbull was asked "Should metadata retention laws effectively outlaw iPhone apps like Wickr?"

He started to reply "Well, they don't. Well they don't. There's nothing - they're sort of not relevant to it because the - if you were using a ..."

Turnbull was cut off before he could finish but I suspect he was going to outline one example of many where a service is outside the scope of the new law (either for technical reasons or for jurisdictional reasons).

Turnbull did go on to encourage journalists to take such precautions in order to protect their sources, so he knows full well that there are gaping holes in the law.

The key point for Australians to take from this is that the criminals the government claims these laws are meant to help track down will be able to take steps to avoid being tracked. The corollary of this is that the policy is a big waste of time and money - OUR money. Liberal and Labor politicians voted today to waste hundreds of millions of dollars of OUR money.

Sadly, I suspect that the voting public will get this only once their monthly internet bill is increased.

Reply Alert moderator
Filz:

20 Mar 2015 12:31:09am

This legislation is a total betrayal of trust in the Australian people as a whole. Due to the actions of perhaps one or two percent of the population, all of our communications will be subject to surveillance.

It surely demonstrates that we are right not to trust our politicians. What is the ultimate insult is that they don't trust us either, but we're powerless to do anything legally meaningful about it. Until election time.

Reply Alert moderator
Grump3:

20 Mar 2015 12:48:17am

Time to remove the line "We are Young & Free" from Advance Australia Fair now that we've become a police state.

One thing for sure is the no one in this family will ever again vote for any of the current self serving parasites in either party that introduced this draconian invasion of our private lives.

How about we ship the lot of them (including Shorten) over to North Korea to experience the benefits & joys of mass population surveillance & control through uncertainty & fear?
Then while they're over there, simply cancel their visas.

Reply Alert moderator
BigJok:

20 Mar 2015 12:50:29am

In this matter I feel we have been betrayed by both major parties and the media.
The media did a con job on us all by instead of informing us properly what was at stake, they started a big hoohaa about journalists rights and whistleblowers rather than letting ordinary people know what was going on.

Let's face it police of all stripes always want greater powers, so of course we give it to them whenever they squeal. I tried to explain it to non tech types that it was like having a policeman follow and make notes of whatever you did, where you were the time and in some cases the content of your interaction with others, and that information could be used against you at any time.

Ah well Australians seem to like the idea of living in a police state.

Reply Alert moderator
JamesH:

20 Mar 2015 2:05:48am

Just more bad days ahead from now on.

Reply Alert moderator
We can has your metadatas:

20 Mar 2015 2:51:04am

The prohibition on disclosure of non-existence of a warrant is actually more sinister and less ignorant than you may think. The clause prevents the use of 'warrant canaries' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) to passively indicate a period during which a warrant may have been served. Methinks this is not informed by some policy wonk up at 3am but by professional intelligence and law enforcement.

Reply Alert moderator
TrevorN:

20 Mar 2015 3:51:43am

Unfortunately, it seems that politicians of all persuasions are keen to jump on to the "tough on crime" bandwagon and want to be seen leading the charge, be it in the form of overruling the Courts by imposing mandatory sentencing, increasing police powers or in this case by authorising the surveillance of the personal and private pursuits of individual citizens. This legislation does not protect the rights of Journalists and as the author points out does not even define whom a journalist is: for instance, are we who contribute to the debate on the Drum journalists? One can only hope that the ALP's acceptance of this Act is only strategic and that they will dump it if they regain government, but I sadly doubt that this is their intent.

Governments the world over have been wary, if not openly hostile, to the power of the internet to free the people of the world to think for them selves, to communicate freely the exchange of ideas or to plan and co-ordinate resistance to oppressive or corrupt political or big business activity. This information collecting is just part of their plan to reimpose their absolute right to deliver us their selective brands of propaganda and to condition our thinking to their advantage, and to intimidate the general public from becoming politically active or otherwise vocal about real or perceived threats to our freedoms and way of life.

Reply Alert moderator
- Zackdog:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:28:09am
  
  Well said ! And all true.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
FREEMAN:

20 Mar 2015 7:09:22am

This is what lawyers spend their day worrying about? What a hysterical piece. Surely there are better causes to take on.

Reply Alert moderator
JRW:

20 Mar 2015 7:22:30am

At the end of the day this isn't about protecting the people, it's about enshrining the power of the two major political parties.

Once again the two major political parties are showing that they do not work for the people any more.

Reply Alert moderator
aidan:

20 Mar 2015 7:41:10am

secure, encrypted offshore vpn for $50 a year makes all of this a non issue. What a waste of time.

Reply Alert moderator
- Lolwhat:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:58:24am
  
  Until those are blocked as well on the grounds of "aiding and abetting piracy"
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Bewildered:

20 Mar 2015 8:07:50am

Encrypt all communications so the data is useless, that's what terrorists do. We understood that this legislation did not target terrorism. Here is your proof. Democracy pffff!!!!!!
I too will be voting greens or any party that has a social conscience.
OOPS, shouldn't have said that, government may use this for polling information.

Reply Alert moderator
jk22:

20 Mar 2015 8:23:21am

I know that it sounds horribly scary.

Nonetheless in today's ultra-tecked world of communications and business transacting [noble and ignoble] I fear I do have to rely on the Government to procure the best shot of watching and hearing what goes on.

'Draconian' gets used now too easily. Wicked actors in terrorism and serious debilitating insidious crimes warrant the Government's best efforts to thwart in some good measure - even if it goes against 'the grain'.

We have so much media on and fantasising, making programs/movies about crime - it's entertainment afterall. In the world of so much struggle to have what is mooted as necessary, the urge for crimes of all sorts is just another option. Too easy!

I 'love' "the law". I like and admire fine reasoning. I also want to feel the nobility of intent that 'our masters and mistresses' have as they too work the system.

History is fascinating and vitally instructive. Sadly it has to be 'tit for tat'.

Reply Alert moderator
Nacnud:

20 Mar 2015 8:26:41am

Shorten deserves to lose the un-losable election over this.

Pathetic, Labor - you've lost my vote.

Reply Alert moderator
foolking:

20 Mar 2015 8:41:27am

All personal political data could be retained and announced for the public record . Then every time a polly was doing a deal with vested interests we would immediately find out. Then to have a private conversation wont be possible because we could bug the restaurants and listen in. They'd have to keep buying cheap phones with new sim cards, then a helicopter arrived and a whole lot of heavily armed heavies jumped out.

We are all going to have to polish up our script writing and acting skills, not to mention evasive skills,what do you think Lehan?

Reply Alert moderator
Breach of peace:

20 Mar 2015 9:07:02am

Australia is not a democratic country nor have they went through a democratic process with "We the People". Australian politicians have 'abused the process' and we have not heard a peep out of the High Court as the Legislature and the Executive have to have a say if we are to remain in the Constitution boundaries. All three have to be in agreement not just one office or two if they are going to carry out their democratic functions. Ever since 9/11 we are being ruled by the Executive. Of course many Australians are apathetic and do not pay attention to what is really happening behind the scenes with these further draconian legislation measures.

I never thought that I would see the day or dream of the day that Australia would be heading down the road of Fascism and Corporate Fascism which leads to Corporatocracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy We are in lock step with the US Fascist Neo-cons and the military industrial complex trans-corporations in Australia and overseas. President Eisenhower and President Kennedy warned of unwarranted power by governments and their unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of ordinary citizens.

You can see what the government's attitude is by closing the gap on legitimate whistle blowers that reveal the bad deeds and expose their lies or ineptness. That is what they are also wanting to do in the light of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. It is sickening that the Australian government from both political parties of the Liberal & Labour often tout transparency and accountability but that is the last thing you will get out of them as we all know they are compulsive liars and do not stand for exposure.

Reply Alert moderator
- WAJ:
  
  20 Mar 2015 11:58:33am
  
  And they call it supporting Australians. When have either ever supported but rather sold them out to the US.
  Interestingly, most Australians don't actually understand the meaning of democracy as they have never really had it.
  Then they make fun of the germans with the "You will do this" remark which is more in line of what occurs here.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Janus:

20 Mar 2015 9:07:04am

Working in the T-Sec Security field. I call the Govt on this BS. The problem security agencies actually have is that there is too much data being harvested. The Take is so large it is a physical impossibility, given the computer technology and people we already have to analyse even a tenth of what we currently have. This Meta Data holding will be used with the permission of the Government, no doubt charging a fee, by the likes of Sony, Foxtel and a host of other US agencies to prosecute Australians for online Piracy offences.

Reply Alert moderator
Nova4avr:

20 Mar 2015 9:26:03am

Why isn't a warrant required for all metadata searches. After all the police have to get a warrant to search you house so why not your metadata. This allows the police & other govt. agencies free reign to do as they like with our private information & this is extremely worrying.
There are corrupt police, just as there are corrupt people in other walks of life, so what's to prevent some corrupt police officer gaining access to your metadata & then using it for his financial gain by blackmailing you, or he will expose you, even if this has absolutely nothing to do with national security.
The day of Big Brother is watching you has definitely arrived & we should all be very alarmed by that.

Reply Alert moderator
Ross:

20 Mar 2015 10:36:21am

One very big failing of the Aussie citizens is we don't protest against our governments as much as we should. If we scare the politicians in to thinking they'll loose votes only then something will be done, I hope some marches are organised before this goes through.

Reply Alert moderator
WaitWot:

20 Mar 2015 10:38:40am

Freedom is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

I feel sorry for the generations who will follow us.

2 years mandatory retention will inevitably become retention for LIFE.

Reply Alert moderator
Wallco:

20 Mar 2015 11:02:24am

This has left me feeling utterly disenfranchised.

I didn't vote for this; none of us voted for this.

Why the hell can't our government govern? Where the hell is our opposition's backbone?

Pathetic.

Reply Alert moderator
WaitWot:

20 Mar 2015 11:13:21am

You may not care if the government spies on you, after all you're not a terrorist, right? Nothing to hide (althougth this line of thinking has been discredited numerous times before).

But ask yourself this question. Do I care if the government spies on my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren?

Because sure as chips, once collected this data will not go away...EVER

Reply Alert moderator
Flint Mint:

20 Mar 2015 11:30:56am

I'll just say this is a really bad idea just like the rest of Australia but to bad an arrogant government doesn't see it this way. Is it cause they just don't understand what everyone is concerned about or cause they don't care and want to use it for personal/political gain?

Reply Alert moderator
jon:

20 Mar 2015 11:33:49am

Are politicians and big businesses having their metadata taken? I DO NOT THINK SO.

Reply Alert moderator
tedfthis:

20 Mar 2015 12:16:04pm

The greater Australian population doesn't understand just how much data or metadata will be collected about EVERYONE, not just criiminals or would be criminals or terrorists. Everyone, including ALL Senators and MP's should watch Citizenfour, about the Ed Snowden revelations in the US. Its mind boggling what their powers are with metadata.

Reply Alert moderator
Reallist:

20 Mar 2015 12:43:02pm

We need a test case. Since this lot is removing red tape relating to data and its sovereignty it would be interesting if the data was stored or available elsewhere. May just have to take them to court in another jurisdiction.
When it comes to securing this data it would also be interesting to take litigation on data breaches due to lack of protection by our government.

Reply Alert moderator