NO WARRANTS NEEDED for metadata access, argues Oz A-G

What a slimy f*ck. For months he was sitting there saying a warrant would be needed to access the data and this would be the basis through which Joe Citizen's privacy would be protected. Now he's saying that a warrant shouldn't be needed. What a dramatic turnaround, which to be honest was entirely expected and exactly the reason why NOTHING this guy says should ever be trusted.

"The benefits of introducing a warrant regime would be outweighed by the impact on agencies’ ability to combat serious crime and protect public safety . . ."

That's entirely true . . . provided, of course, you think that protecting privacy, preventing gross misuse, maintaining an auditable trail of access, enforcing adherence to policies and ensuring requests are responsible, proportionate and in the best interests of the public is all not really much of a 'benefit'.

So, with what little respect I have, I might just go ahead and disagree with you there George.

The other premise this stance is based on is the belief that this data is not really that intrusive and not really akin to 'communications'. I'm going to have to disagree again, matey.

Requiring a warrant, therefore, does two main things - it ensures that requests are legitimate and in the public's best interests and it tells the public that you actually value their privacy. Saying you think a warrant isn't necessary because it's too much work sends exactly the opposite message - that you don't care about maintaining high standards and especially don't think that the privacy of the public is important.

But all this is just rubbish anyway because even with the strictest, most red-tape bound warrant process for accessing this new font of private information, there is still MORE than there was before. The law enforcement agencies will still have access to the exact same sets of information that they have now and under the exact same rules. So that part will be no harder than it is right now. BUT, they would gain an extra, bonus source of information, well beyond anything they have right now and that extra information would come with extra restrictions, beyond what they have now.

To me that seems reasonable - they will keep what they have always had and gain access to more, but with some additional precautions that represent the sensitivity of the extra information. Well, 'reasonable' so far as this goes - I don't support the collection of this information at all but if it's going to go ahead and we're going to have more information stored about our Internet activities than ever before then I want that information to be protected by stronger safeguards than ever before.

And if that slows the police down then so be it. They're there to protect me and this is a risk I'm more than willing to take - especially given it's a risk I'm living with right now and have been for years. (As they don't have access to this info at all currently. Yet, amazingly, I can still sleep at night.)

Answer me this...

It used to be that the LEA's (here in the States anyway) had to get a warrant for the phone records of a person of interest. So what's the difference between metadata and phone record? I realize that it's different technology but the information is basically the same, right? Basically it's who called who at what time and howl long did the call last, for voice, no? yes? Or are the LEA's twisting things a bit that it's somehow "different"?

Really?

"Many information-gathering powers that are exercised by agencies under Commonwealth, State and Territory laws do not rise to that level of intrusiveness and may be exercised without a warrant. Examples of such powers are powers to obtain banking, financial and healthcare records. "

I'm not an Aussie, but can you really have your healthcare records read through by the police without a warrant? That's definitely more intrusive than metadata and should be a priority to fix.

The AG might need a lesson

in the intrusiveness of meta-data!

Hey Brandis

Fuck Off.

That is all.

Funny

George's own Chief Of Staff signed a letter to my local member responding to my questions saying:

"The government is committed to ensuring agencies' access to metadata remains subject to strong safeguards". Isn't allowing random law enforcement agencies to view what they want somewhat less than "strong"?

And it was also mentioned that the data collected will be subject to the Privacy Act 1988 - call me an idiot, but surely allowing random access by police to this data breaches that act.

Storing data on phone calls is a direct attack on democracy

In a country like Australia where a secret ballot is essential to ensuring an honest election, this is an attack on people's right to vote for whom they prefer.

Any person should be able to speak or act, for or against an incumbent executive government. By tapping my calls without warrant, by looking at who I call, where and when, even legal political activity can be curtailed and suppressed.

Should I choose to campaign (as is my protected right to free speech), I can no longer be assured that the executive government will not interfere. If I argue with Australian voters the attorney-general cannot be trusted and should be replaced, can I expect this to be ignored by those currently in power? Should I choose to argue that the security forces need to be curtailed can I expect now to appear on a watch-list that restricts my access to like mined individuals?

Those who have nothing to hide have no vote.

SBU.