A belated, but increasingly angry, reaction from the media has forced both the government and opposition to cave in and offer some protection to journalists and their sources from data retention.
But journalists are not the only ones who don’t merely “have something to hide” but must hide things in order to do their jobs properly. Confidentiality is also a crucial requirement for lawyers and doctors — and that confidentiality is also threatened by data retention.
It is not sufficient for Australia’s media companies and senior journalists to conclude that the job is finished on data retention. Their sources can still be hunted down if a judge provides a warrant. Other professions that, like journalism, need confidentiality are not protected. And the serious erosion of every Australians’ privacy afforded by a mass surveillance scheme that simply will not yield any benefits in fighting crime or terrorism remains. The media should be just as angry about those things as it was about the impact of data retention on journalism.
Or is the media just another special interest group looking after itself?
Update on our new design: due to popular demand the “view in browser” option is now back in its rightful place at the top of the Crikey newsletter. Thanks to everyone who provided feedback, we will roll out other fixes over the next week. — The Crikey team.
“Or is the Media just another . . . .” Absolutely!
It’s scary that these laws may have passed by without much attention, except for the fact that they would directly affect people who work in the media.
But they would also affect ordinary people in ordinary professions. The film, “Citizen 4”, gives a pretty worrying snapshot of what’s already going on regarding erosion of privacy.
With the advent of online voting, don’t citizens require the same or higher standards of anonymity?
Thanks, Crikey, for improving the newsletter layout in response to requests. Commendable, and much appreciated.
Given that it is not possible to uninvent something – much revoke a shitty law when/if T1 follows T2 ito office – the only defense is for the citizen to have FULL access to everything garnered about them, whether commercial (dodgy credit rating agecy) or government (dodgy spooks & cops)within a very short period, say 48-72hrs on demand.
If refused the refusal should be contestable, even if only before the Potemkin judges who hand out warrants like sweeties to ructious children.
Better than nowt, which is what we have currently.
And, whatever the L.A.W. don’t imagine that spooks/cops will not do whatever they choose, as always, as noted in Acton’s Axiom.