We now know that dozens of agencies have applied to access your metadata without a warrant since the Coalition government’s mandatory data retention laws were passed last year.
A remarkable array of agencies want in on your private business, including local councils, Australia Post and Greyhound Racing Victoria.
Last year the government reduced the number of agencies that were able to access metadata and assured voters that the surveillance would only be used for traditional law enforcement purposes. This was a compromise, our pollies said, to protect our privacy.
If they are to remain true to their word, the requests of all 61 of the agencies should be knocked back.
Local councils access metadata to track down people who dump rubbish illegally, while Australia Post has told Crikey they use it to find mobile phones stolen from their stores. But there is no reason why these offences can’t be investigated by traditional law enforcement agencies — which already have unprecedented access to our personal information and are collecting it at a rate far higher than just five years ago.
Australia Post told Crikey this morning that its request had been knocked back by the Attorney-General’s department. This is welcome news, and should extend to all other applicants.
Those opposed to mandatory data retention long warned of the inevitable “scope creep” of the scheme once it became enshrined in law. The government should be fully transparent in deciding whether or not more agencies can snoop on our metadata, or do they have something to hide?
Would prefer the number of agencies with that access to have a 0 in it, one 0, with no other significant digits.
Anyone who takes comfort in the old lie “if you’ve done nothing wrong you nothing to worry about” should remember how credit agencies get things wrong and are virtually impossible to rectify.
The danger is not just (sic!) that the government functionaries – our Servants – know all about us but when they (think)that they know MORE than we ourselves, ie when they have something wrong.
All LEAs use the Admiralty Rating system for grading intelligence, A-F, 1-6 in which A1 is ‘known without doubt’ to F6 which is the local drunk sed summat ’bout someone or the local twitching curtain saw what it should not have.
The vast majoirty of the inforamtion held is BELOW D4 which is ‘unsourced/unreliable source, unverified/contrary to previous higher grading.
Enjoy and just remember what the ex-head of the NSA told Congress – “We kill people based on meta data”.
Makes you feel like East Timor – with much of the same government buggering you like they did them, for Woodside?
One of the few justifications Senator Brandis advanced for the data retention scheme that got universal support was the fact that it significantly reduced the number of agencies that can unilaterally go searching our personal and private data. Internet Australia argued, successfully, that any expansion of the list should be made public. At least that way we will know if the government bows to pressure to add back any of these “fringe agencies” that were prevented access under this Act. Internet Australia has also argued that if they have a legitimate reason for needing access they should go through the Federal Police or another police force that is on the list.
LAURIE PATTON | CEO, Internet Australia
Personally, I think that collecting this metadata is the end of democracy and not terribly different to the Stasi and secret police eras.
But if they are going to collect it, surely only the Federal and State police forces should be accessing it, and the spy agencies.
All others organisations have no reasonable need for this information.