

Push for Australians' web browsing histories to be stored - peterkelly
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/push-for-australians-web-browsing-histories-to-be-stored-20140317-34xtr.html

======
pserwylo
For those interested, this was also brought up in 2012 [0]. Among 44 different
things that were requesting comment, was this, tucked away in section 15c [1]:

"tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set,
with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy
and cost impacts"

One of the main reasons it didn't end up going further was likely due to the
fact so many Australians wrote to the inquiry expressing their concerns [1]:

"The Committee received 240 submissions and 29 exhibits. Three submissions
were received in largely identical terms from some 5,300 individual members of
the public. These submitter's expressed opposition to the reform proposals,
particularly the proposed mandatory data retention proposal."

The part you will be interested in is "Chapter 5 - Data Retention" [2]. In it,
the committee came to the conclusion that there wan't enough information
provided in the terms of reference to make a proper judgement. However they
talk about how it is of obvious interest to the law enforcement agencies, and
obvious problem to civil libertarians. They commented on how it is up to the
government to choose how to make a decision and take into account these two
opposing views.

This is actually the first time I participated in a democratic process, beyond
voting, and was pleasantly surprised to find out (only this morning during a
more detailed read through the report) that they quoted my submission! [2 (Box
1)].

It is sort of the opposite to voting, where you feel "how can I make a
difference". If you take the time to write in to such an inquiry, then it is
highly likely that your opinion will get taken seriously.

[0]
[http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm)

[1]
[http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report/prelims.htm#anc4)

[2]
[http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report/chapter5.htmhttp://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report/chapter5.htm)

~~~
majika
That's really encouraging. I reposted your comment to Reddit [0] - is that
alright?

By the way, your third link is broken. It should be:

[http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report/chapter5.htm)

This is why defeatism annoys me. There are things we can do to fight this, and
we should be doing them.

[0]:
[https://pay.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/20mk33/asio_and_...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/20mk33/asio_and_police_pushing_for_australians_web/cg4pkli)

~~~
pserwylo
Yeah, go for it. That is indeed the correct link.

It's funny, because I was happy to read the coverage about the overwhelming
amount of letters they received regarding data retention. However I was really
dumbfounded when they mailed my a physical book with the contents of the
report in it, rather than just emailing a link to the PDF or something. Lo and
behold, it actually turned out to be useful for me to sit down on the couch
this morning and thumb through after reading this new headline about the
topic.

------
Homunculiheaded
"The techniques of the police, which are developing at an extremely rapid
tempo, have as their necessary end the transformation of the entire nation
into a concentration camp. This is no perverse decision on the part of some
party or government. To be sure of apprehending criminals, it is necessary
that everyone be supervised. It is necessary to know exactly what every
citizen is up to, to know his relations, his amusements, etc. And the state is
increasingly in a position to know these things."

\- Jacques Ellul "The Technological Society" (1964)

~~~
javajosh
Great quote, thanks. Never heard of him before, but definitely a man ahead of
his time. Here's another cherry:

"it is a fact that excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener;
they drown him. He cannot remember them all, or coordinate them, or understand
them; if he does not want to risk losing his mind, he will merely draw a
general picture from them. And the more facts supplied, the more simplistic
the image"

\- "Propoganda" (1965)

------
gregsq
I'm afraid to say that in Australia the reaction to these privacy and personal
rights issues has been lethargic and frankly lazy. Under some circumstances, a
lowly under educated clerk with no security clearance of any kind can, with
the approval of a single supervisor, access data such as metadata for a
variety of reasons. The reaction of the vast majority of the population is
complete political apathy.

Australia began it's modern europeanised existence as a police state, and I
honestly don't think that it's evolved through law beyond that initial
modality.

It has never had in it's constitution the expectations on rights of the
citizen that underpin the US constitution.

It's unlikely that there'll be much resistance from the public to these
proposals.

~~~
majika
You complain that the public's reaction to these issues has been lethargic and
lazy, but then the rest of your post reads as an obituary of freedom in
Australia.

I, for one, am sick of this defeatist attitude which I see all too often from
(small-l) liberals in Australia.

Australians have fought against authoritarianism, and we need to continue to
fight. We stopped the Internet filter, we pirate more than any other country,
and we have Green party representatives in both houses of the national
parliament.

I think a Bill of Rights is non-democratic in Westminster-judicial societies.
Whereas in the US the judicial branch is somewhat accountable to the people,
in the UK, Canada and Australia, the people's will is only expressed in
parliament. So, if the Australian parliament amended our constitution with a
bill of rights, it would be handing power from our elected representatives to
our non-elected High Court judges.

Furthermore, bills of rights are only superficial in protecting rights - they
are always subject to the whim of the culture and society in which they
operate. Canada has a bill of rights [0] supposedly protecting freedom of
speech as a _fundamental right_ , yet "discriminatory speech" is illegal (e.g.
a comedian discriminating against homosexuals [1]).

[0]: [http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/page-1.html](http://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/page-1.html)

[1]: [http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/20/comedian-dinged-
for...](http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/20/comedian-dinged-for-
homophobic-rant-loses-constitutional-challenge-to-human-rights-code/)

Sure, "discriminatory speech" has been ruled illegal in Australia too [2], but
my point is: what's the point of a bill of rights, then?

[2]: [http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-
irresponsi...](http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-
irresponsible-journalism-illegal-think-again/)

Or, another example, look at how well the US' Fourth Amendment is protecting
Americans from mass surveillance. I would posit that the reason the US has
maintained more freedoms than other countries isn't thanks to its Bill of
Rights, but thanks to their cultural belief in the importance of liberty. (or
maybe its their distrust of government oppression of liberty? I can't tell)

So, as an Australian, I have no problem with not having a bill of rights. If
we become a republic, and our High Court judges are then accountable to us?
Maybe. But I'll want to hear from respected law professors before making my
mind up. See [3] for a good discussion, and links to reading material.

[3]:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/q7xhm/what_are_the_a...](http://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/q7xhm/what_are_the_arguments_for_a_bill_of_rights_what/)

Anyway, more on-topic, I do agree with you that Australians need to step up
their game to fight against authoritarianism. I don't agree that what we need
is a bill of rights, and I do think we still have hope as a society.

~~~
brc
I agree with most things you have posted in this thoughtful comment,
specifically to do with the lack of need for a bill of rights in a Westminster
democracy (which most people do not understand).

However, characterizing having Greens party members in parliament as some sort
of measure of liberalism made me do a double-take. The Greens are many things,
but small-l liberal they most definitely are not. While they include policies
on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young
voter base, they also include many, many policies which are an anathema to
people interested in freedom. They were a large backer of government
regulation of the press, they have many policies which bring in serious
regulation of many industries and frequently talk of population caps. They
even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator. There is no true liberal party
in Australia, _especially_ not the Greens.

Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is
said and what is voted for.

~~~
majika
Liberalism is a really broad idea. In general, it's based on the principles of
achieving liberty and equality for everyone. There lots of differing (often
incompatible) views about how to do that.

> While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters
> which appeal to their young voter base

I think that's a really unfair position to take on their policy here; it
trivializes the effort they (in particular, Scott Ludlam) are putting into it.
[0] They've fought more than just the Internet filter - Scott Ludlam has
introduced a bill [1] that would end mass surveillance by Australian
intelligence agencies, he's continuously made motions in the Senate to inquire
about mass surveillance, and made speeches about the importance of
whistleblowers in a democracy.

Look, sure, I would agree that the Greens party could do more. Ending mass
surveillance and supporting Internet freedom aren't a central tenet of their
platform, but that's their right (I'm not a Greens member). It's why I vote
for the Pirate Party in the senate (and I would vote for them in the lower
house if they had a representative in my seat). I plan to volunteer for the
Pirate Party at the next election, if I'm in Australia then.

If you take issue with a party taking a particular position to appeal to a
certain voter base, then you take issue with representative democracy in
general.

> They were a large backer of government regulation of the press

 _The Australian Greens believe that:_

 _\- Freedom of the press and effective, affordable and accessible media and
communications systems are integral to the functioning of a successful
democratic society._

 _\- Australia must have an independent regulatory framework for media,
communications and advertising._

 _\- Net neutrality is important for an open internet._

 _\- Documents placed in the public domain by government should be accessible
with free non-proprietary software, and public data should be made available
in open, inter-operable formats._

 _\- The government should lead by example and embrace open source and open
standards._

That said, if you believe that government is anathema to liberty (I don't),
you would consider any law relevant to any part of the press as being
"regulation". I think these aims of the Greens make sense (mostly):

 _\- Diversity of both opinion and ownership of media across Australia and a
strict limitation on the number of media outlets an individual entity can own
or control._

 _\- Truth in political advertising legislated._

 _\- Individuals protected from defamation actions designed to stifle
participation in public debates._

 _\- Effective regulation of the digital games industry to ensure children are
not exposed to excessive violence or sexual content._

My support of that last aim wavers on the meaning of "effective regulation". I
do support a rating system for games to help parents choose, but I wouldn't
support censoring anything outright (I don't think the Greens would, either).

> [the Greens] frequently talk of population caps

Source?

> They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator.

I really don't care. I only care about their policies and their actions - and
I mostly agree with them.

> There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.

It's really useful to be able to come to terms with views that differ to your
own. Your version of liberty isn't the only version of liberty.

In my opinion, the Greens are far and away the most liberal major party in
Australian politics. They may not align with your view of "true liberty", but
that doesn't mean they're not liberal. They very clearly support liberty (in
words and actions), certainly more so than Labor or the Liberals/Nationals.
The Pirate Party agrees with me here: the Greens are at the top of their
preferences.

> Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is
> said and what is voted for.

There are a few policies of the LDP that I support, that few other parties
care about. I support abolishing most federal departments and reforming the
constitution to give states legal autonomy, because I believe smaller
governments are more democratic and less susceptible to corruption. I support
privatizing Australia Post, electricity generation, and bus and ferry
transport, because those industries are open to competition, and their profit
motives align with the public good. They do have a lot of policies supporting
liberty that I agree with.

Unfortunately, I think their beliefs in how to achieve a free and equal
society are, quite plainly, bonkers. I think there are lot of industries where
the profit motive does not align with the public good (education, health,
media, prison, military), or where competitiveness is intrinsically
nonexistent (rural telecommunications infrastructure, metro train transport).
I would always support private competition in those industries, but I think
it's important to have publicly-owned offerings to provide a lower-bound in
service and quality.

Furthermore, I believe there are government regulations that directly decrease
liberty, but indirectly increase liberty much more. Workplace regulations
(minimum wage, discrimination, safety, training), gambling, international
trade (to some extent), banking, and drugs (control, not criminalization) fall
into this category.

On taxation: I believe we should tax our super-profitable industries so that
we can share the wealth we have now with future generations, and so that they
don't create an imbalance in the rest of the economy.

A major reason I support the Pirate Party is that their entire process is
really inclusive: they have a well-maintained wiki, an updated blog, and an
active IRC channel. Their policy development process is open and democratic.
They're like the Labor party of the 21st Century.

In contrast, most other political parties' processes are closed and private -
including the LDP. It's unfortunate that for all the LDP's espousing of
liberty and direct democracy, they don't seem to keen to create a democratic
environment for their own party.

[0]: [http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/prism](http://scott-
ludlam.greensmps.org.au/prism)

[1]:
[http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislati...](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s924)

[2]: [http://greens.org.au/policies/media-
communications](http://greens.org.au/policies/media-communications)

------
declan
This is not unique to Australia. It could happen here in the U.S. Here's a
story I wrote in 2010:

FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited / "The FBI is pressing Internet
service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those
logs for two years..."
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html)

Other proposals that have circulated around DC officialdom have included
mandatory data retention requirements aimed at social networks, sites that
accept photo uploads, domain name registries: [http://news.cnet.com/Politicos-
mull-data-retention-by-Web-ho...](http://news.cnet.com/Politicos-mull-data-
retention-by-Web-hosts%2C-registrars/2100-1028_3-6119878.html)
[http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-
site...](http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-
sites/2100-1028_3-6089574.html)

Of course these proposals are being advanced by politicians and bureaucrats
who have only the vaguest glimmerings of an idea of how the Internet works
(and even less of an appreciation for the limits the Constitution places on
the federal government).

------
noclip
I'm curious as to what it is about Australia that makes these obscenely
invasive schemes tenable to the public. It's clear that surveillance agencies
in representative governments all over the world want and pursue these kinds
of capabilities, but almost none are brazen enough to advocate for them
openly. Even fewer can do so and reasonably expect a nonzero chance of
success.

~~~
cptn_brittish
Australia generally ignores most of what happens in parliament feeling they
have other things todo which are better as it normally feels like we have
elected five year olds to run our country.

~~~
mercer
Why do you think this is? I mean, assuming you think this is more the case in
Australia than it is in other places.

------
Schwolop
I'm a little concerned that the RSPCA has warrantless access to my browsing
history already. Aren't they a volunteer organisation that promotes animal
welfare?

~~~
andyjdavis
That jumped out at me too. I have no idea why they are included in this. Are
they going to start trawling access records looking for "animal cruelty how
to"?

------
spamTheFuck
Let's all just start spamming the fuck out of Australia.

Australian citizens should be equipped with tools to just spam the fuck out of
their own ISPs, with absurd useless requests, as a form of civil disobedience.

Did I say the words "spam-the-fuck-out-of-it" enough in this post? No? SPAM
THE FUCK OUT OF THAT SHIT.

Doesn't matter if they've performed analysis on the total possible consumible
bandwidth, per subscriber, per ISP, and budgeted storage allocations times a
hundred.

JUST SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING AT ALL TIMES. FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. DON'T
BEHAVE.

~~~
jff
From most Australians I've spoken to, it won't take much spam action on their
parts to exhaust their (expensive) Internet plans' (very small) data caps.

~~~
maegget
$59.99 for unlimited ADSL2+ - not really that expensive

~~~
crawrey
There's no such thing as unlimited residential internet in Australia.

Not for $59.99 anyway - and from what I found, it is $79.99 with TPG, as you
have to bundle your home phone with them. Also note the ~Limited coverage
availability at selected ADSL2+ with Home Phone enabled exchange areas. Which
would relate to the fact that they have to be exchanges that TPG owns, which
you'll find is predominantly exclusive to Sydney
([http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/](http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/)).

Even with all of this, TPG is notorious for having poor service and high
contention.

------
mysteriousllama
Has anyone else pondered what would happen if knowledgeable people were to
help Australians perform a civil protest in the form of a resource consumption
attack?

Even with data caps in place I'm sure one could perform quite a few
requests/second continuously for an entire month.

Multiply that by (hundreds of?) thousands of protesters and the logging system
could be overwhelmed. Especially considering such a system would likely be
badly implemented by the lowest bidder.

Even if it were not overwhelmed, the requests could be tailored to trigger as
many false-positives as possible.

~~~
computer
Are you suggesting to commit computer fraud in an attempt to break government
security systems, thereby giving terrorists and pedophiles free roam?

~~~
victorhooi
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not? Lol.

------
kaliblack
How many cases have their been where they had a suspect and not having the
last 2 years browsing history allowed the suspect to avoid conviction?

~~~
andyjdavis
I really wish they provide some data like this even if it is anonymized or
whatever. It would possibly make it less instantly repugnant if they could
actually point to even a handful of cases where not having this data directly
lead to a loss of life or similar.

------
thomasfromcdnjs
If any Australian developers are interested in campaigning and raising
awareness against these policies, visit
[http://taskforce.is](http://taskforce.is) and send me a message - Thomas

------
cxx
It seems as if english speaking countries are on a race to the bottom to see
who can get to 1984 first. It's hard to see if this is just incompetence or
the creepy fantasy of power-hungry thugs.

------
javajosh
_> The federal spying agency is supported by the Northern Territory Police,
Victoria Police, Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, who all say they are in
support of a data-retention regime._

Just once I'd like to see a law-enforcement agency somewhere in the world and
do the unexpected: come out for individual liberty, and against invasive data
practices. It would be remarkable because this data represents leverage that
the cops can use against, well, anyone, and so to give it up as a matter of
principle would be a laudable position.

Another interesting thing about this quote is that it so blatantly gives lie
to the notion that any of this power is used, or is even intended to be used,
for national security. No, this data is going to be used by cops on the
street. It's going to be used as leverage, and as an insurance policy: if they
beat you up, they do a background check and see if you did something wrong. If
you did, they offer to reduce charges on those grave offenses if you agree not
to charge the department with brutalizing you. If it wasn't for all that data,
where would the poor old police have the leverage to strike such a deal?
They'd have to go to all the trouble of actually getting warrants and seize
your data, which is of course an undue burden on the police. Much better to
have it all stored and waiting for use.

------
hyperion2010
Wow. Do they have any idea why librarians refuse to keep records of who check
out what book? This is a billion times worse.

~~~
poulson
Is there any legal protection for users' reading lists in libraries? Because
it would be wonderful if someone could set up a legal online library which
would extend such protections onto the internet.

~~~
dictum
You bring a point I hadn't thought of yet: aside from illegal downloading, you
can't buy an ebook anonymously.

~~~
schoen
See also Julie Cohen's 1996 paper on this problem:

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=17990](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=17990)

------
higherpurpose
That's not all they're proposing, but also to be able to decrypt everything,
from both users and companies:

[http://www.itnews.com.au/News/375286,attorney-generals-
new-w...](http://www.itnews.com.au/News/375286,attorney-generals-new-war-on-
encrypted-web-services.aspx)

It's almost like Australia was watching UK, and all of the sudden they
realized UK is getting too far ahead of them in becoming a totalitarian state,
and they can't let UK win the race! If it wasn't so sad and terrifying, it
would almost be fun to watch which of the two becomes a police state the
fastest.

Unfortunately, potentially millions of lives will be affected by increasingly
more draconian laws in these countries, whether they realize it or not (like
with censorship, when it becomes hard to know what you're missing out on,
because you don't know what's been censored).

~~~
dobbsbob
Democracy rapidly disappears at this point. Parties can use the data to
identify areas of the population who are unlikely to vote for them and target
them with robocalls and false mailings that instruct them their voting poll
address has changed, or the date for voting has changed in order to prevent
them from voting at all. Blackmail is also an option, so is discrediting
opposition when you have access to watch them 24/7.

By the time anybody figures out shenanigans went down nothing will come of it
because everybody involved will deny, and any elections authority that could
have investigated will be gutted, de-funded and dissolved to make sure nothing
comes of it. If irregularities are recognized then they will simply put
together a bullshit reform package, call it the 'Fair elections act' and it
will be anything but fair

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-would-
dise...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-would-
disenfranchise-voters-hand-parties-too-much-power-electoral-officer-
warns/article17347400/)

~~~
hkphooey
In a strange way, it's good that people don't get to vote. With voter apathy
and declining turnout in many countries, might as well encourage people to
stop voting.

Let voter turnout drop to single digit percentages. It would be hard for
anybody to claim that the elected person had any kind of mandate. The news
headlines would be farcicial, "Prime Minister elected, wins 55% of the popular
vote, on 7% turnout"

Of course in Australia they currently fine you if you don't vote. Perhaps in
future they'll make it a criminal offense and put people in prison for not
voting!

~~~
SyneRyder
The fine is a token amount ($20 - $50), although failure to pay results in the
loss of your Drivers License. [1]

Considering the voting debacle in Western Australia (where a Senate result was
declared with just a 14 vote margin, despite the Australian Electoral
Commission admitting to losing 1375 ballot papers), I think there are some
Australians debating whether they should participate in future elections.

[1] [http://www.elections.wa.gov.au/vote/failure-
vote](http://www.elections.wa.gov.au/vote/failure-vote) [2]
[http://delimiter.com.au/2013/11/18/wa-likely-vote-
senate/](http://delimiter.com.au/2013/11/18/wa-likely-vote-senate/) [3]
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/court-of-disputed-
retu...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/court-of-disputed-returns-to-
rule-on-wa-senate/5222454)

------
fuzzywalrus
Seems like a good time invest in Australian VPNs...

------
contingencies
Australia makes, in some of its data retention programs, a case for a
distinction between "storing" and "temporarily retaining" information. This is
certainly the case with the EU/Australian agreement over here:
[http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreem...](http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreements#incoming-1120)

The problem is that when one wing of government 'temporarily retains'
something, local intelligence agencies will tap the cables and keep it
forever.

