Category: Civil Liberties

In response to the recent announcement that the Government will pursue a mandatory two-year data retention regime in Australia, Electronic Frontiers Australia and GetUp! have launched a petition opposing these plans[1]. The Pirate Party, which had a similar petition tabled in the Senate in February 2013[2], is fully supportive of the initiative and encourages all Australians concerned about their privacy and incursions into their right to free expression to sign it.

The petition is available at https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/mandatory-data-retention-efa–2/sign-the-petition

“Metadata is everything and nothing if you believe what has been unthinkingly blurted by each Government minister given the opportunity to ramble aimlessly on a topic they have no understanding of[3][4],” said Brendan Molloy, President of the Pirate Party. “What is clear is that there are far-reaching, negative consequences of the introduction of any data retention regime and we are wholeheartedly against their introduction.

“Please sign this petition to show that Australians are firmly against data retention measures that would not only be ineffective at combatting crime but would also unnecessarily and disproportionately impact on our civil rights to privacy and free expression. Australians have the right not to be treated as criminals by default. We’ve fought it before, we’ll fight it again, and we’ll win.”

The significant majority (98.9% by some estimates[5][6]) of submissions made to the National Security Inquiry in 2012-13 were against the introduction of a data retention regime.

It is unclear just what data will be collected and stored under the retention regime, however it appears from comments made by the Attorney-General that it will extend as far as the websites that Internet users visit. No legislation has been proposed, making it incredibly difficult to critique the proposals in detail.

[1] https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/mandatory-data-retention-efa–2/sign-the-petition
[2] https://pirateparty.org.au/2013/02/26/data-retention-goes-back-underground-as-campaign-turns-up-the-heat/
[3] http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program_agenda/2014/08/06/agenda-security-laws-may-collect-metadata.html
[4] https://soundcloud.com/something-wonky/george-brandis-dubstep (necessary listening for all true masochists)
[5] http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/905-segment/5655718
[6] http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/motions/motion-data-retention

The Pirate Party is vehemently opposed to any proposals for data retention being put forward by the Abbott Government[1]. It has been announced that the National Security Committee[2], part of the Cabinet, has signed off on proposals to store all telecommunications “metadata” for two years, meaning that everyone with a phone or Internet connection will have the details of their communications stored. This proposal is being justified as necessary on tenuous “national security” grounds and on the basis that content of communications will be excluded.

“It is wholly inappropriate for a digitally illiterate cabal of politicians to determine what is appropriate policy in this area at all. The media also continues to fuel misinformation regarding what is being proposed here and it must stop,” said Brendan Molloy, President of the Pirate Party.

“Storing 24 months worth of metadata from Internet-based communications is not comparable to storing the time and phone number of a phone call. Internet metadata can identify not only who you contacted and when, but dependent on the device you are using, it could include your exact position during that communication, the subject matter of the communication, the context of the communication, and a whole wealth of other information that could not be gathered from the content.

“This is a grotesque attack on every Australian’s right to privacy and the legal principle of being treated as innocent until proven guilty, as a blanket Internet surveillance regime treats us all as suspects, sucking up a wealth of data that goes significantly beyond the pre-digital era definition of metadata. Metadata is personally identifiable information; it is private, and it should require a warrant for collection and access. The potential for abuse greatly outweighs any positives there may be.

“The smallest, most reasonable gesture the Government could perform is to seriously undertake an open and considered consultation process on these proposals, and allow those who understand the implications of what is being proposed to demonstrate what an absurdly disproportionate and undesirable proposal it is.

“The worst part is that there is no evidence that this will help fight ‘terrorism’ at all. If we look to the US, despite their global wiretapping regime, domestic terror attacks such as the Boston Bombings were not thwarted by the wide-scale, dragnet surveillance of people around the world. Why would it work here?”

Read More

The Pirate Party renews its calls for the Government to abandon the pursuit of mandatory data retention following comments from the Attorney-General that data retention is under “active consideration”[1]. The Attorney-General also stated that data retention is “the way western nations are going.”

Pirate Party President Simon Frew commented: “What the Attorney-General has essentially said here is that everyone else is doing it, therefore Australia should too. This is abysmal reasoning in light of the thorough criticism provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union earlier this year, in a judgment that overturned the EU’s Data Retention Directive. The Court overturned the Directive precisely because it violated fundamental rights. That was not an invitation for law makers to find a different way of implementing a similar regime. The failure of the Data Retention Directive should serve to deter governments from implementing mandatory data retention: that level of indiscriminate intrusion into people’s privacy is unacceptable.

“The Attorney-General has also stated that privacy intrusions for the purposes of law enforcement should not be disproportionate[2]. We put it to the Attorney-General that data retention is disproportionate. How on earth could it be considered proportionate to store all information about who is contacting who, when they are speaking, for how long, and where they are? A society under constant surveillance is not an appropriate goal.

Read More

Pirate Party Australia is alarmed over reports that the Federal Cabinet has approved sweeping new surveillance powers for ASIO[1][2]. The Cabinet cited concerns that Australians in Syria are being radicalised by the conflict raging in that country, putting Australia at risk, but the proportionality of the response is not backed up by rigorous evidence. Pirate Party Australia is concerned that the new powers will put ordinary Australians under even greater surveillance without providing any greater ability to monitor actual threats.

Pirate Party Australia President Simon Frew commented: “While we have yet to see the new surveillance powers being proposed for Australian intelligence agencies, the previous government’s National Security Inquiry conducted in late 2012[3] provides us with a good indication of what they want. Of most concern is the push for more intrusive surveillance with insufficient oversight. Australians are sick and tired of the continual ramping up of surveillance we are being subjected to. Some surveillance is justified but it needs to be targeted and warrants must be obtained.”

Read More