Australia poised to introduce controversial data retention laws

by
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."
Reply 14 comments

Misleading summary (Score: 1)

by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 12:47 (#2TTJ)

Two things in the summary are misleading:
1. I want to know where $100 to $200 figure came from? It is not in the linked article and, as far as I know, no cost estimates have been released yet.
And it definitely sounds WAY TOO HIGH. Does it mean my Internet bill will go from $50 to $250???

2. "The data will be used for copyright enforcement and to track the exact location of mobile phone users."
This is VERY MISLEADING as it sounds that the main goal is copyright enforcement. The data retention is part of anti-terrorism legislation and it will be used for a variety of investigations (counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security). Yes, copyright enforcement also gets mentioned but I don't think it is not the main goal.

Having said that, I completely disagree with the proposed laws as they are more than open for abuse. Even "metadata" has not been defined yet.

And I agree with Tanuki64's comment how such laws are inevitable. The whole world is slowly turning into a police state. Unfortunately resistance is futile :-(

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 13:28 (#2TTK)

The data retention is part of anti-terrorism legislation and it will be used for a variety of investigations (counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security). Yes, copyright enforcement also gets mentioned but I don't think it is not the main goal.
But copyright enforcement is the only area where data retention works. Terrorism? If you already have suspects, you don't need a new law. If you don't have suspects, I doubt that data retention helps. Want to search a billion emails for: 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?'. Up to now I did not hear of a single case, which has been prevented or solved by internet surveillance. Same for organized crime, etc. So yes, I think copyright enforcement is the main goal. IMHO counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security... you forgot child porn... are just smoke screens.

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1)

by axsdenied@pipedot.org 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention
"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.

3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/turnbull-introduces-data-retention-bill-to-parliament/5853156
"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.

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 15:14 (#2TTN)

To 1: Hardly prevents any terroristic acts. Terroristic acts are quite rare. In my eyes terrorism is a very weak excuse to observe the whole population.

To 2: Easy for them to restrict themselves just to meta data. Sound good in the public... and is 100% sufficient to enforce copyright.

To 3: There is no internet provider, who does not quickly responds to c. p. take down notices. C. p. is the only thing where practically every country agrees on. And how much c. p. is there? I surf the net for more than 30 years and did not stumble upon any. You cannot openly advertize it. You cannot have ads on c. p. sites. To catch c. p. users and producers a much better and totally sufficient way is to follow the cash flow.
Here a good example, what really is significant for certain groups:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/

I'd bet that if we were able to follow most of the lobbying paths for data retention, we would in more than 90% of all case end with the MPAA and RIAA. I all countries.

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 17:27 (#2TTR)

1. Whether the numbers are correct or not, you're confusing per-month with per-year. $100-200 per-year works out to $8.34-16.67/month, making your internet service $59-65/month.

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1, Informative)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-01 10:19 (#2TVD)

The figure came from iinet. Next time google it before getting upset.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-data-retention-plan-will-cost-consumers-130-year-says-iinet-2014-8
Australian consumers could be paying more than $10 a month extra - $130 a year - just for internet access under the Government's data retention plan, announced yesterday by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, as part of new counter-terrorism laws.

Modelling by Australia's second biggest internet service provider, iiNet, on the expense of retaining metadata for two years will cost the company an additional $130 million a year - $10 million for electricity alone - which will be passed on to consumers.

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-01 14:15 (#2TVN)

How did you get from $130 to $100 to $200?

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-03-02 01:58 (#432M)

From the information available at the time. $100 to $200 a year is the range for how much extra it could cost consumers. Now they are estimating up to $10 depending on how much the estimate blows out. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/revealed-the-true-cost-of-metadata-retention-20150302-13sdk5.html

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-03-02 09:48 (#43Q6)

$10 per month per account could add up.

$10 for internet.

$10 for mobile phone.

$10 for home phone.

Perhaps it will be $10 for one account if the account bundles internet, mobile and home phone.

What about if a household has multiple phones? $10 per mobile?

Wait until a month after this comes down and everyone realises they are being taxed $10 per account. Let the screaming begin.

Re: Misleading summary (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-01 10:28 (#2TVE)

Metadata stored about a phone call could include the parties to the call, location, duration and time of the call, but not what was said.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-shelves-controversial-data-retention-scheme-20130624-2oskq.html
On The Drum tonight: The AFP Commissioner admits data retention laws could be used against illegal downloaders, the Government moves to force a vote on its Direct Action plan and Nova Peris tells Parliament the release of her emails were part of an attempt to blackmail her.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/the-drum-thursday-october-30/5855562

Europeans (Score: 1)

by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 20:03 (#2TTS)

Seem like the the aims of "the right to be forgotten" and this style of "data retention" law are in direct conflict.

Internet Tax (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-01 10:30 (#2TVF)

The local name for this is the Internet Tax.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/secret-government-briefing-admits-metadata-law-cost-and-warns-of-internet-tax-campaign-20141030-11e1v8.html

Hungry has rejected an internet tax (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-01 11:46 (#2TVJ)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hungary-drops-internet-tax-plan-after-mass-protests-20141101-11fbzk.html