Australia poised to introduce controversial data retention laws

Anonymous Coward
in legal on (#2TTE)
The Australian government has introduced data retention laws that are highly controversial. Under the new provisions, all internet data would be retained for two years, leading to additional expenses related to capturing and storing data that would cost Australian internet users $100 to $200 per year each. The data will be used for copyright enforcement and to track the exact location of mobile phone users.

The Australian Pirate Party is incensed, naturally, and states that this policy destroys any semblance of a free society.
“There are far too many flaws in this legislation to enumerate,” said Brendan Molloy, President of the Pirate Party. “There has been no discussion as to why the current retention order provisions are insufficient. This legislation is disproportionate and unnecessary. ‘Metadata’ is ill-defined in such a way as to contain so much information that it is effectively the content of the communication, insofar that it contains the context and location of all communications. This is a massive issue for journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and a whole host of other persons whose activities are in many cases legal but perhaps not in the interests of the state to let happen without some level of harassment.

“There are significant issues relating to cost and security of the data. Steve Dalby of iiNet said yesterday that iiNet would consider storing the data where it is the cheapest, which includes Chinese cloud providers. There will be a significant ‘surveillance tax’ introduced by retailers to cover the costs of storing this data that nobody wants stored.
The data retention laws have been delayed in the legal process, but not stopped. Pipedotter Tanuki64 points out "Sooner or later this bill will go through. It is just a matter of time. Same in Germany. A data retention law was rejected several times, but is reintroduced in almost regular intervals. The interests behind these laws are powerful and they have to succeed only once. Once such a law is enacted, it is almost impossible to repeal it again."

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1)

by on 2014-10-31 14:52 (#2TTM)

Again, I am completely against all this crap but:
1. Terrorism: Data retention can show who contacted who and when and hence lead to new suspects. For example see
"The authorities in Spain and the United Kingdom have claimed that retained telephony data made a significant contribution to police enquires into the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 7 July 2005 London bombings."

2. The article/legislation is about storing metadata only and not content. Stuff like 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?' won't be stored.

"For example, in a current major child exploitation investigation, the AFP has been unable to identify 156 out of 463 potential suspects because certain internet service providers do not retain the necessary IP address allocation records,"

Of course 90% of this is politician's bull... but there must be at least a bit of truth in it.

The main goal of this proposed law is not copyright. Every government's/leader's/dictator's dream is to have a complete control of their people so they can retain power. Surveillance is a step towards it. Copyright is just an additional bonus.
Post Comment
Eighty four, twenty three, 95, 66 or 86: which of these is the highest?