

Australian local council intercepted phone, email data to hunt litterbugs - maskofsanity
http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/349643,vic-council-intercepted-phone-emails-to-hunt-litterbugs.aspx

======
nicholassmith
I like how under the guise of protecting us from terrorism they're now
protecting us from the most evil of evil crimes. There was a mild outrage
about 5 years ago in the UK when a few councils were caught using RIPA laws
(what GCHQ is currently claiming to be protected by) for all sorts of fun
things. Like dog poop [1], ice lolly bribes [2] and so on. I feel 100% safer
knowing that surveillance is used to tackle all these huge crimes.

[1][http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm)
[2][http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053039/Council-
use-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053039/Council-use-anti-
terror-laws-spy-binmen-accused-accepting-strawberry-pop-bribe-away-trade-
waste.html)

~~~
alan_cx
Add to that UK police using terrorist powers to harass... sorry, stop and
search kids who dare to be out in public. Oh, I also believe the police can
use the terror excuse to search homes with out a proper warrant. Most people
who are treated like this don't even know why. They just get quoted the act
section number. Something like, "we are searching you / your home under
section xyz." No mention of the terror laws.

This is exactly why we should be very careful about giving sweeping powers to
authorities under the guise of "terror".

~~~
cmdkeen
The UK did away with S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 precisely because there was
backlash against the mass use of groundless searches. What was especially
galling is that the UK has pretty broad search powers anyway based on
reasonable suspicion, so anyone choosing a S44 search was basically admitting
they didn't expect to find anything.

------
gregsq
There is an upcoming referendum in Australia which seeks to take this level of
government into the budget allocation process of the federal system. If this
happens, all functions of local government have the characteristic of
affecting federal taxing powers.

Therefore all actions and provisions by local government will have a
characteristic that provides the authority to access metadata for all citizens
on the single signature of the enquirers supervisor. The enquirer can be any
paid employee of the council who has a working title.

Any license, fee, ambiguity on any bylaw compliance, planning decision and so
on can, because it has a fiduciary component, lead to a legally performed
metadata query on any citizen.

And the citizenry I have met are, I am afraid, oblivious to these matters.

~~~
jacalata
I have literally not heard of a coming referendum at all, although in in the
states and not necessarily current. Got any more details?

~~~
gregsq
Sure. Here are some links to follow.

[http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/resources/referendums/2013-l...](http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/resources/referendums/2013-local-
government-referendum-faqs)

[http://www.councilreferendum.com.au/](http://www.councilreferendum.com.au/)

[http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representati...](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/About_the_House_News/Latest_News/CRLG-11122012)

As I've alluded to, the element of this that pertains to privacy is the
incorporation into the Australian Constitution of Council fiduciary
compliance. It has been law since 2007 in Australia that in any question
impacting the federal taxing power authority conferred by the constitution,
such queries can be made as a matter if course, as long as permission is
obtained from a single signing supervisor.

~~~
nl
Can you put some of that in plain English, and provide some references please?

 _It has been law since 2007 in Australia that in any question impacting the
federal taxing power authority conferred by the constitution, such queries can
be made as a matter if course, as long as permission is obtained from a single
signing supervisor._

What exactly does "federal taxing power authority" mean, and under what
possible interpretation does that mean that a body funded by the federal
government suddenly gets the power to subpoena phone records and tap email?

There are plenty of other federally funded bodies at (AFAIK) don't have that
power. Or maybe I'm wrong, and agencies like Screen Australia actually can do
that?

(Not that I support this referendum, but that's for different reasons)

~~~
gregsq
Protection of the public revenue is the clause in the telecommunications act
1997 that the Australian Tax Office and Job Centre investigators often rely
on. Access to metadata does not require a warrant. In some cases, telcos can
provide information to allowed agencies even without certification.

I'm fairly convinced that local governments will be motivated to protect their
own revenue with methods that are specifically designed to protect the public
revenue. Already we are seeing some councils using these methods. The number
of accesses must be reported, and these reports form the basis of recent news
stories on this subject. It remains to be seen whether there are any real
constraints on the volume of queries when and if local governments are
directly funded by the federal government.

By federal taxing powers I mean what is generally described in [1]

There is history in the relationship between the Federal and local
governments. Reference the Whitlam governments attempt at bringing local
government under federal control, which failed, and the Fraser government etc
[2]

The COAG meetings provide the mechanism for state funding, through which local
councils currently are funded. There is one local government representative
present at COAG meetings [3][4]

Part 13 of the Telecommunications Act and access to metadata.[5].

The amendments relevant to warrants for access to content of stored electronic
communications and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 2006
are in [6]

1\.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxat...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxation_in_Australia).

2\.
[http://sydney.edu.au/law/cru/documents/2013/CRU_Report_3_%20...](http://sydney.edu.au/law/cru/documents/2013/CRU_Report_3_%20Local_Government.pdf)

3\.
[http://www.coag.gov.au/the_federal_financial_relations_frame...](http://www.coag.gov.au/the_federal_financial_relations_framework)

4\.
[http://www.coag.gov.au/reform_agenda](http://www.coag.gov.au/reform_agenda)

5\.
[http://www.pacificprivacy.com.au/Government%20Surveillance%2...](http://www.pacificprivacy.com.au/Government%20Surveillance%20in%20Australia%20v6.pdf)

6\.
[http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2006A00040/3bf9cedc-87c1-4...](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2006A00040/3bf9cedc-87c1-4c8c-895a-83cf7831b278)

~~~
vicbrooker
I still don't really get what you're trying to say. Mentioning that a power is
contained within a clause of the Telecommunications Act doesn't really mean
much. All 594 subsections need to be read in conjunction with each other
before an accurate interpretation can be made. I've had a quick read through
and I can't really see how a broad enough construal of Part 13 is possible for
anything you're saying to happen. It's going to turn on whether the government
believes whether the High Court will interpret what you're describing as
'reasonable' even though the Act repeatedly emphasises that confidentiality
should be paramount. We've got some silly people in power but they're not that
dumb.

I do not understand how councils are not already part of the 'public revenue',
maybe there is case law on this that I am unaware of?

The explanatory memorandum attached to the referendum explicitly states that
the Federal government will have no legal influence over local councils. It
also mentions that the referendum is for no other purpose than to grant the
council money. As soon as any evidence of what you've described crops up
they're going to get their asses handed to them in court as they're acting
against their own explicit intention. I can't see the loophole you do at all.

I've spent the last 25 minutes or so going through the Telecommunications Act
and it is an absolute shambles when read in context. As I said in another
post, there are far simpler ways for the Commonwealth to claim a legal right
to monitor us.

If the Australian government wanted to monitor our metadata, or conduct any
other sort of surveillance for that matter, they'd probably just do it and
then claim external affairs once they're caught. It's far simpler and more
effective than to try to engineer a legal loophole like you're describing.
It's cynical and it sucks but that's the way these things tend to go.

~~~
gregsq
Councils already access metadata in accordance with the Telecommunications
Act.[1]

I provided the links to the amended Telecommunications ( Interception ) Act
2006 as it describes the warrant system required for stored data or content.
Not data in transit.

Those agencies that have a more direct linkage to federal funding, for
example, the ATO on the input side, and Social Security, for example,
Jobcentres on the output side, are those bodies that probe metadata the most
it would appear, under the provisions in the Act regarding defrauding the
public finances without suspicion of criminality or otherwise, though such a
suspicion is in itself also a justification.

While the funding provided to local councils via the states is also public
funding, direct funding by the Commonwealth has as its aim efficiency of
course, but also control and competitive negotiation between councils. The
single representative present at the COAG meetings can only be partly
effective at representation given the competition between the states. One size
doesn't fit all, and there is a case to be made for greater efficiencies by
having direct negotiation with the Commonwealth, and for greater formalisation
over things like standards of delivery and varieties of services.

With these advantages also comes responsibility, in things like reporting and
budget control. Just as happens with the states that have an interest in
maximising funding, and where effectively punitive financial penalties are
extracted in future COGM rounds because of either malperformance or political
difference, I contend that the pressure upon councils to protect their funding
will only increase, as it has with the states, which face competitive
constraints. Some will win and some will lose, but maintaining maximum levels
is something that we expect in any case.

This is a significant constitutional change I think. Local councils, when
directly accountable to the Commonwealth, and as providers of services
financed from general Commonwealth revenue, will I think behave more broadly
alike in their attitude to income and expenditure, and use the methods already
allowed them, and already employed by certain other councils. The linkage
between council revenues and the revenues considered exactly in the
Telecommunications Act are more direct perceptually.

I think Australians should be cautious about this, and so do some of
Australia's politicians as well. [2]

1\. [http://powerhouse.theglobalmail.org/the-australian-
governmen...](http://powerhouse.theglobalmail.org/the-australian-government-
snoop-patrol-once-every-two-minutes-247-anyones-data/#!prettyPhoto)

2\.
[http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/green...](http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/greens-
plan-to-strengthen-australias-privacy-online/4762002)

------
bigiain
And while Snowden and Manning had security clearances and Official Secrets
Laws holding them accountable for mis-using the data they had access too, I
wonder if anyone's even asking who at the local council level has access to
this sort of data, and what
policies/procedures/systems/agreements/accountability is in place here? Who
wants to bet there's nothing stopping the local dog catcher or garbage
collection manager from requesting whatever they can plausably justify - then
downloading it onto a usb drive and walking out of the office with it?

~~~
toyg
It might be a way to make civil service more attractive to stalkers.

If I were anybody's ex-wife with a messy divorce and/or a restraining order,
I'd be _very_ opposed to all this.

------
davidbanham
I'm calling BS on this. To me it looks like the council sees an illegally
posted advertisement with a phone number on it, then seeks the name and
address of the owner of that phone number.

It looks like the journalist is then reaching to connect this with that new
"metadata" word they've been hearing so much about.

------
readme
It sounds like spin.

>“Retrieving a telephone subscriber’s name and address for an investigation
into an offence is an important tool," she said.

That was the reply from the spokeswoman and the article provides no
accusations of any further "data interception" behavior.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this article is trying to characterize caller
id/the phonebook as "intercepting data", sure, it's technically accurate, but
the words "caller id" are a lot less scary.

~~~
ryusage
I remember a friend was up in arms a couple years ago about their phone number
being exposed on Facebook. When I pointed out that's exactly what the phone
book had done for decades, he suddenly didn't care much.

------
oohmeplums
Wow, how is it even possible for local councils to do this? Given how dodgy
local councils appear to be ... wow. How monumentally fucked up.

~~~
ra
Absolutely. The only way any authority should ever be able to wiretap or get
phone / internet records is with a warrant signed by a judge because there is
a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime.

Even then this should only be available for law enforcement, not local fucking
councils!

How did we get into this mess?

~~~
goatforce5
The article is really unclear, but to me it sounds like they were doing
reverse phone lookups.

Illegal advertising - get the details of the number on the poster.

Unregistered pets - maybe they have an 'if found please call ...' tag on the
pet, but no pet registration.

People dumping stuff illegally - if you were dumping general household/office
waste, you'd probably have letters or bills with your address on it already,
but I can think of scenarios where they might only have your email address to
go on.

------
nwh
This is part of the problem really; feature creep. Very quickly you're just
scrounging around looking for crimes to charge people with.

~~~
haakon
I believe the term is mission creep:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep)

------
vicbrooker
This seems to be the source, it has a little bit more information:
[http://www.wyndhamweekly.com.au/story/1628329/experts-
slam-w...](http://www.wyndhamweekly.com.au/story/1628329/experts-slam-wyndham-
councils-data-snooping/?cs=1553)

------
DigitalSea
I am speechless. As an Australian (from Queensland though) I am absolutely
shocked because I know from repeated experience as do many that local councils
are staffed and run by usually highly incompetent people. How is it a council
is able to access such information in the first place? Someone needs to demand
some answers.

Would hate for those criminals breaking the law with their unregistered pets
considering it costs like maximum $80 per year to register a pet...

------
hobolobo
'If you build it, they will come' works for both baseball diamonds and
surveillance systems, it seems.

