I don’t have any hilarious fauna-related images to post, like a koala saving a tourist or a crocodile eating a tourist, but I do have this:
Australians are about to lose the fight against data retention.
As we speak Parliament is holding an “inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation", specifically a proposal by Australia’s Security and Intelligence Agencies to create a metadata dossier on every Australian, a dossier that contains details of our location, our phonecalls, SMSes, chats, skypes, and any other data they decide by regulation to store.
These agencies also want permission to search through this incredibly personal, private information without a warrant.
The vast majority of software engineers, privacy advocates, academics, lawyers, internet activists and journalists that follow this issue have the following concerns that have not been addressed:
- Mass data retention is mass surveillance and mass surveillance has always historically been abused to kill, maim and torture people.
- Creating a giant data store on every man, woman and child will create a giant “honey pot” that will attract hackers, foreign spies, terrorists, kidnappers and unscrupulous corporations.
- There are already examples overseas of rogue public servants using such metadata stores to stalk and harass people.
- Data retention will be used to track whistleblowers who have contacted journalists and parliamentarians.
- Mass data retention on the assumption we might commit crimes inverts the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Now, I respect our security and intelligence agencies. I even admire their one-eyed approach to their job of protecting the country regardless of cost. I completely understand why they are requesting these powers.
The problem is that, listening to the Parliamentary Committee, parliamentarians like Attorney-General George Brandis and Philip Ruddock have abrogated their responsibility to balance the different stakeholders and have been captured by one side of the debate. The risks from monitoring every person in the country far outweigh the risks from terrorists. The cost-benefit analysis to society makes no sense.
My entire career as a software engineer on some of Australia’s largest e-commerce websites has had as its core responsibility: keeping you and your data safe. It has been the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath that doctors follow.
To think that Parliament, in its ignorance, is about to give legal cover to third parties to intercept, store and spy on that data, to break that oath, is a big worry. It will absolutely make Australian society as a whole much less safe than the meagre benefits it will achieve.
I have no idea what to do other than to try and raise awareness and hope the government starts to listen, as they seem to be ignoring the submissions made to the Committee.
At the absolute least if this data retention bill has to go though, the only access MUST be with a warrant.
