“Skype. That’s a telephone that you use on a computer?”
That was Philip Ruddock, yesterday, at the hearings into the data retention bill by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Ruddock distinguished himself at an earlier hearing in December when he dwelt at length on why internet cafes weren’t subject to the bill, apparently being unaware that internet cafes have ISPs and don’t run their own internet access service.
Ruddock is a dogged advocate of mass surveillance, and he has already proposed that data retention be extended to five years instead of two. He has repeatedly argued that mass surveillance is justified because the “right to life” is more important than the “right to privacy”.
Ruddock’s police state ideology is one thing. But his staggering ignorance of the most basic matters relating to communications is quite another. And it is apparent from the hearings of the committee so far that Ruddock is not alone in not understanding the basics of communications technology — a failing members evidently share with the Attorney-General himself, who doesn’t understand the concept of metadata at the heart of his own bill.
For a committee charged with vetting the most serious assault on a free press and privacy in a generation, and one that has sought to expand its oversight role in relation to intelligence and security matters, this is unacceptable. MPs and senators purporting to represent the national interest in relation to security and intelligence have no excuse not to understand the basics of the bills that are scrutinising. The inevitable result will be the toxic combination of profound ignorance and surveillance state thinking that in the US delivered industrial-scale, illegal NSA surveillance.
If JCIS wants to be taken seriously as the oversight body on intelligence, its members need to dramatically lift their game.
Sorry?
If “A telephone you use on a computer” is not an reasonable description of Skype, could someone explain to me what Skype actually is?
Crikey – This lot don’t know anything about everything else, so why would you be surprised that they no nothing about ‘mass surveillance’??
It’s black comedy – but not very funny!
Given the current government’s drive to retain possible evidence for a crime that hasn’t yet be committed but neverless might, they should consider other forms of evidence.
How about the weekly garbage? There could be all kinds of useful stuff mixed in with the soiled nappies and potato peels – drafts of letters, the wrapping from a few sticks of dynamite… anything at all.
I expect Brandis to table a bill requiring the retention of “domestic metadata”, ie the contents of their garbage bins, for five years, in case a security squad needs to go through it.
Without a warrant, of course.
And at no cost to the government.
There! Another problem solved! And at no cost to the taxpayer!
“Why would (Sir) Humphrey mislead me?”
David Hand
That’s a bit like calling a mobile phone (and its network(s)) a pretty slick walkie-talkie.
Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype . The description is about as simple as it gets.