Australia's Privacy Boss Slams Gov't Data-Retention Scheme 82
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.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As an Australian, I have to differ. I prefer someone who's trying to push me advertising over someone who's out to take my liberty.
"Law Enforcement Agencies" (Score:3, Interesting)
... which is to say record labels and motion picture companies.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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 h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 inc
Re: (Score:2)
Since this was modded insightful, I'll bite, what geneva conventions has australia broken?
Most mental institutions tend to check you out when you get there, if they don't release you it tends to be a good sign that maybe they were right in putting you there. Last I checked there weren't masses of people tossing their perfectly mentally able parents etc in there either.
By the general rant against mental health institutions and putting scientology in a positive light, would I be correct in saying you are in f
Re: (Score:1)
Well... (Score:1)
Just a waste of money (Score:3, Informative)
This dragnet approach is pretty pointless. All it does is cost people time and money.
With the amount of browsing I do I would probably be able to look at my entire history and find illegal things I have accidentally or unintentionally stumbled across over the years, not to mention what kind of traffic I have generated when I have got the odd virus/worm.
It doesn't really protect the community either as anyone who wants to go to the trouble of hiding what they do online can do so very simply so in sense something like this is akin to listening to everyone's phone conversations and not realising the people you are trying to get are sending each other letters.
Australia really needs a Bill of Rights created, and in this day and age of Communications and identity it strongly worded to protect peoples individuals rights online from government, corporate and other individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
It will not get through during this parliament (Score:2)
I very much doubt that the Greens will vote for this. The Liberal/National coalition will support the idea, but will be compelled to vote against it just to annoy the Labor government (although once it gets publicly linked to those kiddy-porn loving, WMD-owning, union-member, terrorist boat-people then that might give the Coalition the excuse to vote for it).
Re: (Score:2)
Like every slashdot story about how oppresive Australia is, this will never pass the House let alone the Senate. Sure, they want an opressive Orwellian regieme but somehow our parliamentary system actually seems to work and put a stop to the idiocy before it gets close to becoming law.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they want an opressive Orwellian regieme but somehow our parliamentary system actually seems to work and put a stop to the idiocy before it gets close to becoming law.
These sorts of schemes almost never have any serious support in the major parties, they're nearly always pandering to independents to get their support on more "important" issues. Hence, as soon as said "issue" has been resolved, they wither and eventually die.
Third Link (Score:3, Informative)
It's probably important to note that the EU Directive specifically mandates that
What's the chance (Score:1)
Man... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
hmm (Score:1, Funny)
Moggy : Gosh Big Bro,you sure know alot.
Mogster : Yeah, I know.
As an Australian (Score:1)
Whether you think it's valid or not, I implore the international community to ignore anything our government says/does about the internet.
Thank you.
Typical... (Score:1)
Techostratasphere (Score:3, Funny)
Thank god our elected representatives know what they are talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The directive defines 'data' to be collected as 'traffic data and location data and the related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user.'"
All that is required is record the fact that IP xyz contacted IP abc using protocol def, that IP xyz belonged to ISP subscriber vikisonline at the time, and that vikisonline is at this physical address. No need to break encryption. If the other end, IP abc, is in Australia then they will also be required to record that IP xyz connected and that this connection authenticated to account viksionline. This is a traffic analysis mother lode. With both ends of this conversation they now can
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> With https this would be really useless anyways.
There is still a log of where you connected and when. That seems to be what they want, for traffic analysis.
The Two Party System fails us (Score:4, Interesting)
Gillard really should have lost the election, but the right-wing opposition party was lead by Tony Abbott; a pro-business anti-worker fundamentalist misogynist racist buffoon firmly in the pockets of big business and the tobacco industry, but an economic ignorance that was laughable. Every time Abbott opened his mouth he drove voters away. Like Palin in America, when a right-wing party is out of office they get captured by the crazies and swing further to the right thinking that will win them more voters. Of course it doesn't, and Abbott lost.
And so Gillard won by default... and now the filter is back. You would think the opposition would kick out Abbott and put in someone more centrist, but they refuse to admit they made a mistake and they're clinging on to him. Meanwhile the censorship regime rolls on. Both parties are pro-censorship. What are we to do?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gillard-ushers-in-the-era-of-farce/story-e6frfhqf-1225896276726 [heraldsun.com.au]
encrypt everything (Score:2, Insightful)
Where are the wowsers? (Score:3, Insightful)
('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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
('wowser' is a uniquely Aussie term for a strong supporter of interventionist government policy).
Er, no. A 'wowser' is typical right-wing, puritanical, fundie-Christian, save-the-children, hand-wringing moron. It's got nothing to do with whether or not they agree with Government policy (and given the current Government, they probably don't, since such people wouldn't support the godless Labor heathens in a pink fit).
Traffic, location and related data (Score:1)
Traffic: All goes to suckitup.is
Location: Roaming wifi
Related data: The Fifth of November
Finally! (Score:2)
Somebody gets a clue about the impact of data retention. If only somebody with enough cloud in the EU will take the same stance...
First Post? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Either (a) no one's made a comment in 3 hours since this story was posted, or (b) something's glitched up on Slashdot and this won't go through.
Related data (Score:2)
And what better way to identify beyond reasonable doubt who the user is than to save all emails to check for signatures, record all calls to compare voices, and so on. Right?
The EU directive may be going down in flames (Score:2)
Note that the EU directive is being fought - successfully - by activist in individual countries. In March, Germany ruled the directive to be unconstitutional: [eff.org]
From the linked article dated March 10, 2010: Last week, the German Constitutional Court issued a much-anticipated decision, striking down its data retention law as violating human rights. It was an important victory for Europe’s Freedom Not Fear movement, which was formed to oppose the EU Data Retention Directive. But it was also a reminder of t
Cheap Storage (Score:2)
I blame WD, Seagate, et al. Now that you can buy 1TB drives for less than $50, and single drives up to (and soon exceeding) 3TB, it is easy and relatively inexpensive to archive everything the users do. Soon, if storage continues to be cheaper per TB, it may become possible, even mandantory to log every keystroke. Of course, there will always be excluded classes, politically and economically, from such laws. But then I'm a cynical old fart, who has seen technology become increasingly invasive, and priva
don't shoot the messenger ... (Score:2)
"People kill people, Guns don't kill people", sounds familiar ?
Don't shoot the hard-drive manufacturers because their products get abused by another totalarian government.
It's still those "for the citizens" which demand these draconian rules of data retention, not Seagate, WD or any company making storage cheaper.
Technology has become to a fase where it's being used against us all, should we therefor blame Intel, Asus and all the mainboard manufacturers in the same time?
Our own (elected) people, with their
A step in the right direction (Score:1)
Are there any Europeans who can offer an opinion on their system?
Privacy boss? (Score:2)
Judging from the TFA this Timothy Pilgrim sounds like a reasonable guy.
Using the phrase "privacy boss" is probably a bit strong though for the head of an organisation that only regulates existing legislation. They only advise the government on new policy, which of course they can ignore. Data retention will obviously save children and stop the terrorists so I suspect that will be the case here.
He can complain all he likes (Score:2)
The rise of Squid? (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a similar law in Canada, whereby law enforcement can review a person's web browsing (and email?) for up to two years.
I see a business model for selling anonymous web browsing via proxy servers.
Commercial proxy servers already exist to get around Hulu barriers and the like.
If such servers market themselves as "anonymous," they should find more paying customers.