Australia's Privacy Boss Slams Gov't Data-Retention Scheme

mask.of.sanity writes "The Australian Government's privacy commissioner has slammed its plans to implement a data retention scheme, in which it would ask telcos and internet providers to store the browsing and calling logs of Australian subscribers. He said the scheme would put user privacy in jeopardy because data will lie around at the behest of law enforcement. The Aussie scheme would be based on that which exists in Europe under the EU Directive. The directive aims to give law enforcement authorities the ability to ascertain the identity of a person using a public network to communicate by mobile, fixed line, email, or internet. The directive defines 'data' to be collected as 'traffic data and location data and the related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user.'"

What about Google's..

[JDmetro]

data retention scheme? Personally I trust the Aussie government more than Google.

encrypt everything

[evanism]

Ozzie here. I swear I have been having more trouble with my email since I've begun encrypting everything. I'd swear these Gestapo bastards are using these laws retrospectively and have been forcing ISPs to do this for some time. I am ashamed to be an Australian. Every year we take a step closer to the steep cliff of tyranny.

Where are the wowsers?

[ghostdoc]

('wowser' is a uniquely Aussie term for a strong supporter of interventionist government policy).

Any discussion of online privacy/retention/etc tends to be one-sided, from my experience so far, largely because wowsers seem to be almost universally technology-illiterate. If the government proposed to keep a photocopy of every letter you ever received or sent, there'd be a howling outcry (well actually probably not, since the only people that send letters any more are government agencies and utility companies, but you get the picture).

In discussions on the Conroy Filter, any explanations about how it won't work tends to fall on deaf ears, or gets the standard Conroy response of 'so you propose we do nothing then?', and the assumption is that the internet is full of vile perverts who should be castrated. The point being that the debate is not on technical feasibility, or even benefits, but on perceived moral stance.

With any opposition to government surveillance, the standard response of 'if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide' should be ringing across the ether...except it appears that no-one who knows enough to comment on this issue is ignorant enough to declare that (well, not as many as you'd expect).

So it seems there's a Digital Divide right there...if the debate is pitched in terms of details and technical specifics, it only attracts knowledgeable commentary, and that tends to be broadly anti-censorship and pro-privacy. If the debate is pitched in simple terms, it attracts wowsers.

Which would suggest that wowsers tend to be older, since young people are more familiar with technology? Or is it education?

Re:"Law Enforcement Agencies"

[Anonymous Coward]

Media barons don't give a shit about Australia. It has more to do with the fact that the Australian government is attempting to install an authoritarian regime. They've done worse than this, though, introducing laws that contravene the geneva conventions which not even influential groups like scientology could overturn.

Currently, the government has the ability to put you into a mental hospital with no oversight, based on a single family member's judgement. Perfect for when the schools start teaching about how we need to keep tabs on our parents!

I estimate that within 20 years, Australia will be a christan theorocracy, and that we will see a halt in all movement towards liberal policies, assuming no revolutions or effective demonstrations occur.

Captcha: dictator
Slashdot captchas really creep me out.

Re:"Law Enforcement Agencies"

[Anonymous Coward]

If it becomes a Christian theocracy I'll move there. The road it's currently on -- one of iron-fisted ruling, the removal of freedoms and a general government invasion into the lives of its people -- is certainly not a Christian one. If you're an avid and serious Bible reader then you likely understand what the founding father of America understood; freedom and the ability of the people to govern themselves are cornerstones of a great nation.

If you'd like to see behind the veil, here it is. Political incumbents intrinsically want more power. Power fuels pride except in all but the greatest of men. Therefore these leaders implement power-transferring laws under the guise of protection of the common good. They may fancy themselves "Christians", but these values are anything but.