2014-10-08
Sophie Trevitt
As the internet becomes increasingly prolific, the state is determined to observe the conversations we have, the information we share and the sites we visit — even if it requires annihilating our privacy. Conversely, the Government has moved its operations behind one-way glass making it increasingly difficult to know exactly what the Abbott Government is doing in our names.
Ever heard someone say “if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide”?
Should we really be concerned about metadata if we haven't done something dodgy? Scott explained using two analogies. First, would you be comfortable publishing your email password on the internet so that anyone out there could read your emails? If the answer is no, it's not necessarily because you have something to hide. It could simply be because it is no-one else's business who you talk to and what you talk about. The second scenario Scott posed was to imagine that during every conversation you've had today, every person you've met, everywhere you've gone, the whole time there's been a man standing over your left shoulder jotting down in his notepad who you've seen, what you're wearing, what your general demeanor is like and the precise location of each interaction. Would you find that behaviour creepy? Unacceptable? Most people would, and that's precisely what the government is proposing to do to you, and other Australian citizens, online.
The second frequently asked question is why? Why do we need a data-retention scheme that is so extensive?
Scott explained after the September 11 attacks in the United States, surveillance practices all over the world took a sharp turn. The failure to prevent the attacks enlivened a “collect it all” mentality amongst intelligence agencies who were desperate to prevent similar attacks happening again. One issue with this, of course, is that it doesn't work. Scott likened it to a needle in haystack — when agencies use the “collect it all” approach, all they end up with is the same number of needles in a much bigger haystack.
This, however, isn't even the biggest problem.
The real issue is that these powers are not only being used to track down violent criminals or terrorists or government corruption, these powers are being used indiscriminately to monitor Australia's civil society. The fact that we're living in a time where just last week a Federal MP has just called environmentalists “terrorists” highlights the need now more than ever for scrutiny and transparency in government actions — not indiscriminate surveillance of civilians.
As Australian citizens, many of us take it for granted that the Government cannot arbitrarily enter our own homes, intrude into our conversations and read correspondence without first demonstrating reasonable grounds to do so. If the police want to search your house they must present an affidavit to the judge, demonstrate that the crime being investigated is of a serious nature, and name a particular suspect to whom the search warrant applies. The judge will then decide if the crime is sufficiently serious and the warrant sufficiently targeted.
Conversely, if a law enforcement agency wants to obtain your metadata and track everyone you spoke to last week, everywhere you went, and what information you were reading at any given time; all they need to do is fill out a two page form and hand it to a telco. Last year alone, agencies accessed Australian metadata more than 320,000 times without applying for a warrant. That information is accessible to hundreds of agencies from national security and intelligence bodies; to centrelink, tax agencies and racing and gambling commissions. Now, the Government wants to take this surveillance even further by forcing telephone companies and internet providers to track and store vast quantities of information on every man, woman and child in the country.
These data retention laws are being proposed in the midst of a crack-down on national security reporting in Australia. Legislation has been passed to ban journalists from reporting on 'Special Intelligence Operations', implementing penalties of up to 10 years in jail. Moreover, this legislation also penalises anyone who shares and distributes that information — including concerned or outraged Australians sharing information with family and friends on the Internet.
But there is hope.
Australia, and indeed the world, has successfully fought back against government surveillance attempts before. In 2009/2010 the Internet censorship debate reared its head in Australia and Internet users all over the country organised to protect free access to information. In 2010, and again in 2011, data retention measures were proposed. The online backlash was so strong that members of both old parties were swayed. We've seen similar successes in the US and in Europe.
Now, we need to organise again.
The Abbott Government's data retention plan could appear in Parliament in less than a month and we need to find 38 Senate votes to block his bill. We have less than a month to be so loud, so persuasive and so inescapable that Labor MPs are forced to act like an Opposition and stand up to this dangerous intrusion into our personal lives.
Scott has issued a challenge to you all:
The creator of the most widely seen, most effective, unavoidably kick-ass meme will be flown at gargantuan expense to Parliament House Canberra, by me, and [meet with me] in the Parliament House dining room which will be weird but also kind of fun. That's how serious I am about this. We will share the best ones on this Tumblr, but remember the objective: to be unavoidably, delightfully in the faces of those ALP senators who have only a few weeks to decide if they will stand with George Brandis or with all of us.
---
The core content of this article initially appeared as part of a Green Institute Webinar 'Surveillance State and you' with Scott Ludlam.