Australia Passes 'Lite' Data Retention Laws 47
schliz writes "Australia's parliament has passed a bill that will allow law enforcement agencies to force internet service providers to store data on subscribers while an official warrant is sought. The changes move Australia closer to its two-year-old proposal to accede to the 2004 Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, designed to assist with international cybercrime investigations through sharing of information on persons of interest, among other avenues."
What does this govt have against civil rights? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/new-law-to-control-cyber-data-20120822-24mur.html [smh.com.au]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/authorities-gain-power-to-collect-australians--internet-records-20120822-24m03.html [smh.com.au]
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the laws went further than necessary, and the government had failed to explain why the far-reaching powers were needed: ''The European treaty doesn't require ongoing collection and retention of communications, but the Australian bill does." Ludlam said the new laws are a "lite" version of the laws Roxon had only two weeks ago promised to delay until after the next election. She didn't mention that when she announced her decision to delay those laws: everyone assumed it was over. Australian human rights lawyer Jen Robinson described it as a "A sad day for civil liberties."
http://www.zdnet.com/au/cybercrime-bill-passes-senate-set-to-become-law-7000002971/ [zdnet.com]
http://www.dailydot.com/news/australia-cybersecurity-bill-privacy/ [dailydot.com]
Re:Used to be worse (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Greens voted against it [delimiter.com.au], and tried to have it amended to increase oversight, to narrow the scope of when data can be collected, and to provide a way to refuse data requests from foreign nations with inadequate privacy safeguards. These amendments were voted down by both the Government and the Coalition.
Re:Used to be worse (Score:5, Informative)
Seems to me you should be pissed off at the Gov and Coalition, since they're the ones who passed it, while the Greens were the ones arguing against it
What a lot of our US readers may be missing is that the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate and they have been in that position for a number of years now. If the govt and the opposition (Labor and Liberal) both vote for the bill then there is nothing the greens can do about it. If they follow party lines and oppose each other then the greens have the muscle to force a compromise by rejecting the legislation, if they do it twice in a row it can force a fresh election (as happened in the 70's).
The greens are in many ways the epitome of the phrase "perfection is the enemy of progress", however the role they play as mediator is a good one on many contentious issues. Under some circumstances a single independent can hold the balance of power, much of the "Great Aussie Firewall" stuff that was going around the last few years back was mainly political theater that was pandering to one such independent. He was a far-right christian who wanted to get rid of smut and propaganda, however after the trial of the GAF his own supporter's anti-abortion website was listed on Conroy's "leaked" black list. He was kicked out in the last election.