Australians are not allowed to know how many times — if any — local intelligence agencies have tapped phones abroad under a new bilateral agreement with the US. At least, not yet.
On January 31 this year, the US and Australia brought into effect an agreement to allow each other’s intelligence agencies to obtain electronic and phone data from service providers in the other country. The deal was originally clinched between US Attorney-General Merrick Garland and then Home Affairs minister Karen Andrews in 2021.
Crikey asked several Australian agencies for information on how many times the so-called international production orders (IPOs) had been sought and obtained so far, but the requests were denied.
The Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Federal Police both forwarded the requests to the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), which responded through a spokesperson who refused to answer the question but said agencies were legally required to report this information to the attorney-general within three months of the end of each financial year.
The Australian Secret Intelligence Service responded with its own refusal: “Consistent with long-standing practice, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service does not comment on intelligence matters.”
When Garland and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced that the agreement was coming into effect, they said in a joint statement the deal would “transform and enhance international cooperation in addressing serious crimes, including terrorism and child sexual abuse”.
“The agreement will allow US and Australian authorities to obtain more timely access to electronic data held by service providers in the partner nation,” the statement went on. “Obtaining this information will help US and Australian agencies prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute serious crime and safeguard our national security.”
A report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman into the oversight of covert electronic surveillance, published last week, found agencies linked to the IPO scheme showed “varied levels of readiness to use an order”.
“Minimal training had been delivered for staff, including for applicants and authorising officers [and] solutions for handling information obtained from an order were not tested and finalised,” the report noted.
Under the IPO scheme, relevant agencies can apply for interception of live communications, access to stored communications, and telecommunications data from the other country. “For example, this could include files uploaded to a storage/backup service, emails and chat history, as well as information related to those communications such as the time sent, associated geolocation data, IP addresses or the identities of the persons sending the messages,” the AGD said in an explainer.
we are like so many other countries taken over by the US without the US firing a shot. its only.going to get worse as the US struggle to stay number one at any cost. i already worry about Australian media on Gaza,one wrong post and your unemployment.
Ah yes, the old “national security” trope designed solely to keep the political and corporate elite safe from the rest of us.
When commenting on why they were opening Australians up to secret access by American security agencies (so many of them do we have the list) they offered “in addressing serious crimes, including terrorism and child sexual abuse”. The catch all BS offered every time overreach by the increasingly less liberal state is extended. Who could oppose stopping terrorists and child molesters? I will refrain from mentioning the Catholic Church. But if they want us to accept this, and of course they don’t care, they are just imposing it, they should dump the secrecy and supply some transparency. Regular reports of how much surveillance, for how long, of how many, and outcomes would be a minimum.
if you want to think about where this could lead just think Assange. The Americans are very reluctant to accept any real limits to their right to act anywhere in the world. The Australian state is already notorious for having little interest in the welfare of its citizens abroad, and not much more in the “rights” of citizens here. Except in curtailing them. Assange is fair game outside Australia, we just invited the US to apply, secretly, to put anyone here under surveillance.
Disagree on interpretation of Assange in UK jurisdiction; offshore media including e.g. Corn of the left leaning Mother Jones actually read and analysed the Mueller Report, onshore none?
If so, ppl would learn and/or question why he was liaising with RWNJs et al. related to Russia-GOP to harm the Democrats electoral chances in 2016?
…. How good is it that it’s not the Chinese doing it.
Yeah, the USA is so good and honest and peaceful and would never use this legislation to harass environmental protesters….. I mean, it would be too difficult for the Australian government to provide a list of names to the USA government…. for surveillance… wouldn’t it?
Yeah. You’d think they’d wake up.
I got the sarcasm, don’t understand the downvote. Couldn’t help but think of the Chinese bundling hooded people on planes in Fiji. Rightfully horrible, but this is somewhere on the continuum lapdog wise.
I’d be surprised/disappointed if I didn’t get those downvotes.