Pirate Party Australia is appalled by the news that the Abbott Government is allegedly considering proposals to introduce legislation to institute Internet censorship and a graduated response (“three-strikes”) regime in an ill-conceived attempt to curb the incidence of unlawful file-sharing[1].

“There is no public support for this proposed legislation,” commented Simon Frew, President of Pirate Party Australia. “Why would the public support blocking of one of the few means of access to content in this broken digital economy?

“Prior to the election this wasn’t even being discussed. However, the Government is bringing the proposal back to the table following donations of more than $300,000 from Village Roadshow in the last financial year[2]. It has also come to light that a key industry lobbyist has had privileged access to staff at the Attorney-General’s Department[3]. This may be coincidence, but it looks suspicious that file-sharing is now prominent on the Government’s agenda, while there has been no observed movement on recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission regarding genuinely important areas of copyright reform.”

In January this year, the Netherlands Court of Appeal in the Hague ruled that blockades of the Pirate Bay were ineffective and easy to circumvent, and that ISPs were no longer required to block access to the popular torrent site[4]. In addition, studies in Australia and around the world have cast doubt on the efficacy of graduated response regimes, with a paper from Rebecca Giblin of Monash University’s Faculty of Law concluding that there is “little to no evidence” graduated responses deter or reduce copyright infringement[5][6]. Despite similar legislation being introduced in a number of countries to date, no evidence has emerged that these have resulted in lowering file-sharing behaviour, nor do they offer any significant protections for content providers.

Read More

Pirate Party Australia reaffirms its stance on scientific research and evidence-based decision making[1], aligning with hundreds of leading scientists calling into question the decision to allow the dumping of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area.

“To approve dredge dumping on the Great Barrier Reef against the advice of hundreds of scientists and many environmental organisations around the world is yet another display of the scientific ignorance and short-sighted, single-minded pandering to mining interests that has come to be a hallmark of this Government,” commented Melanie Thomas, Deputy President of Pirate Party Australia. “Pirate Party Australia advocates the adoption of an open and scientific framework to help inform these developments and protect our natural heritage for generations to come.”

Read More

Pirate Party Australia has stated that ‘metadata’ is the most dangerous form of data[1], but apart from Senator Scott Ludlam, no one else got the message. Representatives from the Attorney-General’s Department and other government agencies have continued drawing misleading distinctions between ‘metadata’ or ‘telecommunications data’ and ‘content data’ at public hearings on telecommunications legislation, though Senator Ludlam has been quick to call them out on this[2].

Pirate Party Australia’s President Simon Frew commented: “Drawing a divide between ‘telecommunications data’ and ‘content data’ is an attempt to make us think that telecommunications data is only the information that gets collected for billing. This is absolutely false. The debate needs to go beyond this artificial distinction. It needs to be reframed around the reality that although content data reveals what you said, telecommunications data can reveal who you talk to, who your friends are, who their friends are, which establishments you frequent, and even the times you are asleep.”

Read More

In an enormous victory for privacy, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the EU’s Data Retention Directive is invalid. Under Directive 2006/24/EC, member states of the European Union were required to store telecommunications data for at least six months, and for as long as 24 months. The press release announcing the judgment states that “the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.”[1]

Pirate Party Australia cautioned against introducing data retention into Australia in its submission to the comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 in February[2]. Earlier, in 2012, the Attorney-General’s Department proposed the introduction of a six-month data retention regime among other reforms to national security legislation[3]. The Pirate Party believes that the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union validates its opposition to data retention.

“We have raised every concern regarding data retention that the Court of Justice of the European Union has in this judgment,” said Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer, Deputy Secretary of Pirate Party Australia and co-author of the Pirate Party’s submission. “This ruling is a comprehensive criticism of data retention, and a validation of our long-held position. The Court has recognised that telecommunications data poses an enormous threat to privacy if retained. Telecommunications data reveals who you spoke to, when you spoke to them, and where you were. It is a means of tracking the entire population.”

Read More

Pirate Party Australia condemns comments made by Tanya Plibersek, Labor’s Shadow Foreign Minister, who on Sunday “gave a strong signal she was comfortable with telecommunications companies collecting and storing intercepted data for longer periods in order to assist intelligence agencies in their domestic anti-terror investigations”[1]. Ms Plibersek restated the artificial distinction between “data” and “metadata,” likening the former to the contents of a letter and the latter to the envelope. Pirate Party Australia is critical of this analogy, and does not accept or condone the mandatory retention or use of metadata, on the grounds that it is a gross invasion of privacy.

“The idea that metadata is equivalent to reading the address on an envelope is misleading. A lot of information about us can be gathered by looking at what websites we visit, searches we make, and who we communicate with. Complex webs of relationships, interests, daily routines, and political and religious affiliations can be built solely using metadata,” said Fletcher Boyd, Pirate Party candidate for the Western Australian Senate Election this coming Saturday. “It can be far more valuable than the content itself, and this makes it ultimately more dangerous.”

Read More