The inquiry currently under way by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into more than 40 proposals to extend the surveillance, intelligence-gathering and enforcement powers of our law enforcement and security agencies has seen a number of myths peddled by proponents of still-greater powers to intrude on Australians’ privacy and basic rights.
A persistent one is the suggestion that Australia’s laws governing surveillance and intelligence-gathering are desperately in need of updating, that they have lain untouched since the technological pre-history of 1979, when the internet was the dream of a few American scientists and academics. In evidence to the Committee yesterday from some of Australia’s most senior policemen, we again heard how laws written in 1979 have been overtaken by technology.
It’s a seductive argument, isn’t it? Technology has moved on, we’ve shifted our communications online — why not just allow what the state used to be able to do with phones, with the internet?
That’s misleading, of course — we live, work, communicate, have relationships and engage socially and politically far more online than we ever did on the phone.
But where the argument falls down first is that the laws haven’t been overtaken by technology. The laws about surveillance have been routinely updated. According to the Parliamentary Library, there have been 45 separate amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 since September 2001 alone.
A number have been trivial — changing “chairman” to “chair”, for instance. But others created new offences that could be used to justify wiretapping, and as long ago as 2004, cybercrime was included in the framework. Far from being an outdated framework, our surveillance laws are in rude health and have been regularly extended to suit the demands of law enforcement.
Apparently, though, law enforcement agencies always want more power, no matter how much they’re given.
****
We’ve been inundated with feedback on the new website and Crikey Insider. Many of you love it; some of you have raised issues that we’re responding to and we’ll be able to roll out changes over the coming days. There’s still some teething problems — we’re horribly late today and we apologise profusely — but we’re getting there. Please bear with us!
How can I love something which makes me read each article twice – first, in the e-magazine, then I track back to the top again to go to the comments. Then, after checking out the comments stream, I track back down to where I was previously.
Of course I hate this new layout – it’s idiotic!
Note that this is addition to having to read the comments last-first, ie back to front.
Surely, this is a mistake similar to that which I mentioned first.
By the time I am done with my daily Crikey I have gone up and down more times than a bride’s nightie or the grooms backside, and for less reason.
At 8:21 this evening, I posted a comment here. It is “awaiting moderation”.
Given the state of the Crikey shambledom, there is reason to doubt that “moderation” in any way describes the destructive efforts which have gone into creating the new format.
Best of luck, you moderates.
4th and last… Where is FDOTM?
There is mention on the Contents page, but what has happened? Is Firsty incapacitated? Where can we send flowers?
I hope for no repetition of today’s disgrace. Get some quality processes running, or be prepared to lose readership! We don’t pay money for amateurism and failure.
good plan Crikey …. that got rid of little Master Entitelment …. good luck with the revamp, people …..