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."
Re: (Score:1)
If you have nothing to hide...
I too have nothing to hide. I never wear clothes and never use curtains.
Used to be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
This is much less sweeping than previous proposals. ISPs don't have to start retaining data until asked by authorities (for a specific person), and they can't actually get that data without a warrant.
OTOH, it now requires us to give foreign governments (co-signers of the Budapest Convention [wikipedia.org], including the US) the right to ask for similar access; "international cooperation to the widest extent possible" with their investigations.
Re: (Score:2)
This is much less sweeping than previous proposals.
There's still nothing good about it. And the greens have shown they're just as authoritarian as the other parties and not worth reelecting. It doesn't matter that the law was watered down a bit. The bastards still approved of it. Shame on them. It so sad to see people give up their civil liberties so easily. And the bigger problem is that they give up mine at the same time (not specific to Australia). Majority rule can really suck sometimes.
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: (Score:1)
From Slashdot's link: Greens Senator Scott Ludlam described the reforms as a targeted, 'lite' version of the Federal Government's proposed data retention laws, and with more oversight.
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power.
They seemed to be against some previous bill, but approve this one. Am I reading it right? If so, then screw them.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should read a little more on the subject, rather than jumping all over a single out-of-context quote. From that article I linked:
[The bill passed] despite vehement protests from the Greens, who argued strongly that the bill was “yet another” unnecessary expansion of the Government’s surveillance powers in Australia.
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. But I can see from your other comments that you're really just looking for an excuse to jump to some conclusions about one of your favourite targets of prejudice.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I read that they argued against it. But he is quoted as backing the "reforms". What exactly is that supposed to mean? And which prejudices are you talking about? If it's against undue authority, then I guess you got me, doing what, I don't know. If the government wants to catch a guy, let them set up a honey pot, and see if he takes the bait. Interception of communications like this is unacceptable. And then passing on to foreigners on their say so that he violated one or more of their laws? My god...
Re: (Score:2)
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power
Read it again; that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. Maybe you should try and track down his actual words, so you can read what he really said in context.
Also, this law isn't about intercepting actual communications (they already have wiretap laws that allow them to do that). This is about obtaining ISP records - IP addresses and so forth - not the actual data being transferred.
I certainly agree that we don't want more online surveillance, and there's no question it will be abused. But in your posts you'
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power.
They seemed to be against some previous bill, but approve this one. Am I reading it right? If so, then screw them.
Mate, I don't think you are reading right.
The current legislation allow the police wiretap phone calls with a valid warrant. Extra police power may be needed in regards with Internet traffic - because, even with a valid warrant, they can't "wiretap" the internet traffic without the ISP collaboration. To bring back the balance, there is a need of a law requiring the ISP to "wiretap". And, this would be this reform to police power the Ludlam may be thinking is necessary.
Now, for phone tapping, the pre-exist
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The previous bill called for retention on everyone's data for 2yrs, the one that passed said the police have to 'ask' the ISP to retain the data while they get a warrant and ISP's have to comply
Re: (Score:1)
It's called a compromise
And sometimes compromise isn't acceptable. If the 2 year law was already in effect, and this law shortened the time that the information must be stored, then maybe I'd see the point (continually attack the law until nothing remains). But that's not what happened; this is just an entirely new law seeking to violate people's privacy and expand the government's power needlessly out of, again, irrational fear of criminals. When it comes to rights, this "compromise" simply isn't acceptable.
Well, you're bordering
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the new law (I actually read the text of the bill on the parliament web page and not just the news articles) requires the police to obtain a warrant before they can actually obtain the stored data, I have no problems with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that it's unnecessary to store people's data, I, on the other hand, do have a problem with it. The intentions of such laws are always to stop the "bad guys," and yet they always affect everyone. Everyone's data will be stored, requests for the data will likely be rubber stamped, and then they'll have loads of information about you. This is exactly why I applaud encryption, and it's highly likely that the "bad guys" will be using it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And sometimes compromise isn't acceptable.
Of course, and that's where politics fails and wars succeed. Be careful of what you hold sacred, it has a price.
Nobody is taking away the right to encrypt, and cops don't like rubber stamps any more than they like obtaining warrants, it's all just "pointless paperwork" to your average doughnut muncher.
Re: (Score:2)
No this is the first step. The previous proposal is still going through the motions.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ambit claim". Oh, and "conditioning". Therefore http://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/08/23/0547247/ask-slashdot-best-vpn-service-for-australia [slashdot.org]
So the greens aren't so cool after all (Score:1)
I've been saying that these people are no different from the rest of the pack. Let's hope they get bumped out of office during their next election. And I hope Americans are noticing when they see Green candidates on their ballot. All their sweet talk will amount to nothing once they get in. "Reforms" BAH!
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying that these people are no different from the rest of the pack. Let's hope they get bumped out of office during their next election.
Unless you show that the greens vote for it, I would consider this a trolling post (factually incorrect and inflammatory). So... [citation needed] please.
Re: (Score:1)
If I repeat my response I made to to someone else, it will be modded redundant. Read the linked article.... Oh what the hell, here:
"Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power."
It appears to me he's approving this so called "lite" version. That stinks.
From now on please check to see if I responded to the same question. It will save my fingers some wear and tear. TNX
Re: (Score:2)
If I repeat my response I made to to someone else, it will be modded redundant. Read the linked article.... Oh what the hell, here:
I wouldn't worry too much.
"Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power."
It appears to me he's approving this so called "lite" version.
From It appears to me... to The bastards still approved of it is a bit of a distance (this 2nd citation is to show you I read your other reply). What if you are reading wrong?
E.g. what if "this law" != "this reform"? I.e. what if the greens think that:
- something supplementary needs to be legislated to enable the police work better in regards with Internet - this being the reform
- but still oppose the retention of data by the ISP without a prior warrant - meaning they still don
What is so wrong with this? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, exactly. Only guilty people would argue against this law (just like people who argue against the TSA are terrorists). The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that are insusceptible to corruption and cannot make mistakes. What's the harm attempting to record everyone, innocent or not? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
These types of laws, which punish everyone be they innocent or guilty of something, are perfectly comparable to laws that state that you cannot murder inn
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it give the police a smidgen of more power...
Yes, it's always just a smidgen each damn time this stuff comes up. You like being cooked slowly, I take it? Evidently you won't mind spending months or years battling against false positives or trumped up charges and other abuses that will happen? Because it sure isn't a matter of "if", but "when".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it give the police a smidgen of more power,
It gives them power that is unnecessary. If the police have legitimate cause, then getting a warrant should be no big deal. Judges are often on call 24 hours a day, and can look at a summary of the evidence and issue a warrant in a few minutes. If getting a warrant in a legitimate situation is a problem in Australia, then they should fix that problem instead of harassing the ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
What does this govt have against civil rights?
Laws.
We're so independent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at us. We're so independent. We're one of the few countries with a working economy. We're insulated against all the bad stuff, we have our own resources industry. We could shut out everyone. We're so awesomely independ....
Ooooh looky here Europe is doing something to screw their citizens, let's jump on that bandwagon.
Ooooh America is passing laws that benefit only major media companies and punishes citizens, we gotta be a part of that too.
Yes I'm trolling.
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone note that EU (first line) is rejecting the US laws (second line), while we idiots subscribe to both.
with any luck they'll contradict each other and when they finally get tested in court we'll find out how toothless they really are
Re: (Score:2)
Hey don't worry, in 20 years it'll be much different: Australian politicians will have discovered a backbone by then when it comes to standing up to both Europe and the United States, I'd guess.
(Instead they'll be falling over themselves to please China.)
What is it about Australians (Score:2)
This concept COULD be reasonable (Score:1)
An administrative demand by law enforcement to not destroy data pending a warrant is reasonable, as long as:
* The demand expires within a few business days, where "business days" is defined as any day that the court is available to the prosecutors.
* The company served and the parties that have an interest in the data - including the person whose data is being sought - have the same or greater rights to seek to quash the subpoena as they would if the subpoena were issued in a timely manner and by sheer coinc