Concerns about Data Retention, Surveillance and Privacy

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Agg, Jul 18, 2012.

  1. broccoli

    broccoli Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    20,610
    Location:
    Perth
    Nobody is talking about "getting a warrant". We are ONLY talking about police signing their own warrants.
     
  2. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,666
    So have we actually seen proof that the new legislation will allow self-signed warrants, or will be warrantless anyway? I've only seen bits about data retention policy.

    If the process to obtain the data is the same, then why the upset?
     
  3. jarryd98

    jarryd98 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936
    Location:
    Brisbane
  4. gaakor

    gaakor Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    157
  5. chunksoul

    chunksoul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,390
    Location:
    adelaide millswood
    i have no issues with this version of the law.

    I was listening to the statements in the senate today..

    The greens proposed a bunch of amendments which changed some small parts
     
  6. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    142,229
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    I wonder how this "persons of interest" works. ISP's should retain all data until suddenly someone becomes a "person of interest", presumably. So that covers the collection of data on all of us, indefinitely.

    I think it's only a matter of time though, and surprised it hasn't happened already, large scale.
     
  7. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,666
    No, the ISP is only obliged to keep the data after the request is made. They can make the request without a warrant, but don't get access to the data until a warrant is obtained.

    Not a bad compromised. Would have liked to see the model you suggested, but hey, compromise has to be made somewhere.
     
  8. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    142,229
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Ok well this is not so bad then. however I would have thought this was capable under existing laws anyways...?
     
  9. bobbth

    bobbth Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Hastings usually.
    as far as I know, previously ISP's could refuse to collect and/or retain data until a warrant was provided. Now they must retain data at police request.

    Not a terrible change, I would have preferred if it were done differently but I'm 'ok' with these laws.
     
  10. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    142,229
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    So in essence there will now be no requirement for a warrant and they will still have to comply?
     
  11. thargs

    thargs Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    195
    A little change here, a little change there and it wont be long before we arrive at the bottom of the slope to total retention and unlimited access by authorities at any time.

    Dont lose sight of how your privacy rights are slowly eroding and why.
     
  12. DarkAshley

    DarkAshley New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    596
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Exactly how I see it's going to head IMO :S
     
  13. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    142,229
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
  14. IACSecurity

    IACSecurity Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    754
    Location:
    ork.sg
    How would you have done it?

    What privacy have you lost?


    No they didn't. What was passed was nothing like the law listed at the start of this thread. It has passed 'A' law, but not 'THE' proposed law.
     
  15. influx

    influx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    12,979
    Location:
    Subiaco
    feeling lazy and reposting what I posted elsewhere, feel free to call me out on being wrong and/or not reading the thread.

    I think there is a certain degree of hysterical reporting in that article since it's about FREEDOM and also, your Facebooks getting read by The Man (honestly, do journalists even try researching the facts these days?).

    Here's the amending Bill.

    The thing about data is that unless you capture and store it, it's gone. This fucks over agencies investigating serious offences since getting a warrant takes time. Yes that's right, they can only access the captured data with a warrant, and they can only serve the 'domestic preservation notice' on your carrier after jumping through some hoops, including weighing privacy issues. And serious crime means either a terrorism offence or another crime carrying imprisonment of 3 or more years.
     
  16. gaakor

    gaakor Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    157
    My response is:

    Our privacy & civil liberties are being eroded on an increasingly large scale. The powers that be want us to live in homes with glass walls, with microphones & cameras listening and monitoring everything we do.

    That's what they want.

    Until they have that, the erosion of our privacy & civil liberties will continue.

    In case you didn't know, governments make money by catching people breaking the law, it is therefore in the governments interest to have as many laws as possible so that people are more likely to break them and have to pay fines.

    See the increasing rate of traffic cameras being deployed all over the country, and the assumption that if you are photographed speeding you have broken the law and must pay the fine, despite the fact that a significant percentage of those photographed were innocent, and must then go to great lengths to convince the powers that be of that; costing them even more time & money - result - pay fine, or spend time & money not paying fine - either way they got you.

    The very definition of "serious crime" is entirely vague and open to interpretation by anybody to mean anything. Some people may consider driving without a seat belt a "serious crime" despite the fact that most cars do not crash, and nor would not wearing a seat belt cause any harm to anybody except yourself if the car did crash. (I am not disputing the fact that cars crash, just stating that the interpretation of "serious crime" is entirely open for speculation)

    There is already sufficient means to monitor someone who is suspected of a "serious crime" without getting a warrant to record every bit of data sent down their DSL line.

    Anybody could be ACCUSED of a "serious crime", it may turn out that they were in fact not guilty of that crime, but the data collected can then be used in a fishing expedition against the person for whatever else they can charge them with.

    This is a nice step towards the next step which will be even wider spying powers against innocent people, which will then be followed by even more spying powers.

    All in the quest for that nice little glass house with cameras and microphones.

    Edit: Not even mentioning the risk of being blackmailed with the recorded data at a later date, or hackers stealing the data to blackmail you.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2012
  17. influx

    influx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    12,979
    Location:
    Subiaco
    Who are "they"?
    No, it is in the community's interest that people who break the law are apprehended and punished.
    Irrelevant to the matter at hand.
    Except it isn't. Serious offence is capable of being interpreted by the courts in the context of the legislation as a whole.
    Except it isn't.

    Please specify.

    That's nice, except to obtain the domestic preservation order there must be reasonable grounds, thus precluding 'anybody' from being accused. And to access such data, a warrant is required.

    You know how crazy this makes you sound, right?
     
  18. gaakor

    gaakor Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    157
    I was clearly referring to the government & governments in general whether it be local state or federal.

    I agree. Laws are supposed to protect the community. Fines on the other hand are increasingly being relied on by governments to earn revenue for spending programs that will win them votes at election time.

    Well that's your opinion & you're entitled to it. I think it highlights the erosion of our privacy & civil liberties and also highlights the way the law is being warped from protection of the community and into a cash cow for governments - I am not alone in this opinion so don't act like I'm some conspiracy nut - it's quite a logical conclusion to draw and in fact the police are constantly drawn on this very question by the media and constantly deny it but we all know whats going on here - hence the constant questions over it.

    This is a new law and I don't believe it has even been used yet since it just passed, so we'll see how the law is treated in the real world. It's funny how you're defending a completely untested law that was just passed and possibly not even used against anybody - surely you would want to wait and see if there is any abuse of the process before jumping to its defense.

    See: the law. Call: your solicitor.

    Again that's nice. That's your opinion & you're entitled to it. We will see how this new law is treated in the real world. Again you jump to the defense of a new untested law - which drew strong opposition, you quickly forget how wide this law would have been had there not been such a vocal & strong opposition - We stopped them getting my metaphoric "glass house" law.

    That's your opinion & you're entitled to it.

    Just a question.

    Do you intend to accuse everyone of being "crazy" who doesn't agree with you based on... nothing?

    Because I think it's entirely logical to see an extension of these laws that have just passed as an extension of the previous law that obviously passed and to therefore presume that further extensions of these laws will be coming in the future.

    Especially since if there were no opposition this law would have been a complete stripping of privacy for every Australian online - one giant fishing expedition on every one of us with no warrants over a 2 year period.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2012
  19. Joe 98

    Joe 98 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    468

    The Government will be out of office in a years time and won't have access to the information.

    So, whats in it for the government?
    .
     
  20. trevor68

    trevor68 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    4,278
    Location:
    Canberra
    Public Servants will still be around, no matter who is in "Government". Theres lots "in it" for them.

    Its also pretty much a non-event even worrying about this stuff. The process has begun. They will chip away at it until its completed and data retention becomes the norm.

    See how easily these "small" changes were accepted.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: