Australian Gov't Seeks To Record Citizens' Web Histories

An anonymous reader writes "If you thought the Australian Government's Internet filter project was bad, think again. They have a new project — they are examining a policy that would require all Internet service providers to log users' web browsing history and email data such as who all emails were sent to and from. And that's just the start. Telephone calls, mobile phone calls, even Internet telephony. It's all in there. Looks like 1984 was a pretty prophetic book." Several readers also point to ZDNet's coverage.

Comments

Okay...

[Mashiki]

So how long before Aussies figure out that "encrypt everything" is a great idea?

Re:Okay...

[Decollete]

How long before the Australian government realize that they need to pass a bill to ban encryption?

Re:Okay...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

OK Mr Wise Geek, let's assume you're right and Australians do figure out that they need encryption to secure their communications. What then? What technologies are available which can offer them secure access to their usual internet services without compromising on features?

What about web browsing? Http. How can they browse securely? Https? Only available on a per website basis, and besides the security crowd are so pedantic they've convinced Firefox and who knows how many else that self signed certs are worse than unencrypted traffic. No real movement on that front then. Tor? I think the atrocious hit in speed precludes that route. Proxies? I suppose they'll work for about five minutes before succumbing to congestion. Let's just conclude this section by stating that encrypted/secure web browsing isn't going to be a viable option for most.

The situation for most other web protocols isn't much better. The simple fact of the matter is that the current infrastructure of the net was never built with mass government censorship in mind and is wide open to surveillance. On top of this, virtually no-one is interested in developing the technologies neccessary to make a secure web a reality, and those that are are too concerned with 50 year old theoretical problems than in making a system that everyone can use. We're not getting a secure web unless you count esoterica like Freenet.

It has nothing to do with figuring out you need to "encrypt everything". It's about needing the two to three decades of research and development required to build an Internet capable of end to end encryption; development that simply has not been done.

Re:Okay...

[what about]

I have a feeling that I got my message garbled....

The point I am trying to say is: If you try to "circumvent a law" (in this case the law would be being able for the Gov. to record you email activity or web browsing activity) then you are against the law and you face consequences.
Hiding behind "I am encrypted" saves you nothing. To the eye of a judge you are "not cooperating with the law and... probably guilty"

You state that banning encryption is impossible, Gov. obviously ban encryption for "unlawful" use, it is then your duty to prove that you where using for lawful use.

I just have the feeling that people that advocates encryption as a solution to privacy and tracking are just attempting to wrestle with the Gov. over "I am stronger than you", you cannot catch me. This is a false and dangerous starting point.

Gov. can always catch you, either dead or alive, you may be a small fish and can wiggle out of the net (unless the infringement process is automatic) but your hope of "breaking the law" indefenetly is just plaing unreasonable, unless, of course you try to "disappear", but then, what kind of life is it ?

So, after this long chatting, the point is:

If you and I think that an orwell society is wrong (I think so) we should say it clearly and loudly and not think "oh well, it does not matter since there is encryption"

Re:Okay...

[jamesh]

In saying that, i don't think we have to worry about an encryption bill, he obviously has no idea that encryption exists...

You are underestimating the power of a stupid puppet. He just needs someone to tell him that encryption is what paedophiles use to molest kids with and he'll be all over it like a bad rash. It won't matter that he doesn't understand it.

Re:Okay...

[ffreeloader]

This post should be a +5 for insightful as this poster nails the issue squarely. Circumvention of bad laws is not the solution for bad laws. The only real solution is getting rid of the bad laws.

Re:Okay...

[captainpanic]

So how long before Aussies figure out that "encrypt everything" is a great idea?

No. The real question is: "So, how long before the Aussies figure out that enough is enough, and they tell their government to stop being so damned paranoid?"

Re:Okay...

[commodore64_love]

Nah, the Aussies will come up with either a US or UK solution:

- Encryption is allowed but the US government holds all the keys.
- Encryption is allowed but the UK will throw you in jail if you refuse to provide the key. Assumed guilt even if you are innocent of the crime.

It is times like these that try men's souls. Isn't the government supposed to be the servant, and the People the master? When exactly did this flip around so the people became mere serfs/puppets of the politicians? Perhaps it is time to consider an abolishment of our respective governments, and to craft new Constitutions.

Re:Okay...

[DJRumpy]

Isn't the burden of proof on the government in this case? How would they prove (without access records), the last time you accessed a device they themselves wanted access to? I wonder how often this is enforced. We haven't quite gotten that bad in the U.S. yet. I think what their trying to pass in Australia is a bit more difficult, simply because all people are two faced. They may clamor about saving the children, and actually believe that, but at home, they are watching scat porn, roman showers, and even some kinky shit. People are curious by nature, and I would challenge most adults have looked at porn or some other content that would be frowned on. They know this, even if they won't admit it.

How long will this Conroy douche be around anyway?

I'm more afraid of the government

[Decollete]

than pedophiles and terrorists.

Re:I'm more afraid of the government

[silanea]

I was about to reply when I realised that your post as it stands can be read in two ways. One I share, namely that the government is a much more immediate threat than any of the scapegoats presented to us, the other - supposedly not the one you intended - brings up a very interesting point. Your sentence could be rephrased as: Pedophiles and terrorists are less afraid of the government than you are. Why should they? They do not mind breaking the law, they do not mind faking their identities or going underground altogether, so they can avoid governmental surveillance. The generally more law-abiding rest of the populace does not have that luxury - we go to work, we pay our taxes, we maintain our social life, we register our place of residency when we move, we buy our plane and train tickets via debit or credit card, we use our own car and our legally registered plates to drive around and so on. Which is why any such surveillance measures have a much more profound impact on us than they have on their supposed targets.

this is what happens

[blue_teeth]

when you support spreading democracy and freedom in other countries. Bombing the shit out of them, to spread your so called "way of life". Internally your "perceived freedoms" are slowly eroded. Go ahead and mark me as troll and go back to living in your cocoon.

 

Re:Pointless.. yet again.

[molecular]

Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available.

I think you're taking this too lightly, just a couple o' thoughts:

  * just because _you_ have a way around it doesn't meen the general public does and it also doesn't mean it will not impact you in some way.
  * encryption is only part of the solution (see other posts)
  * email can still be scanned, only transport between you and your mailserver is encrypted, the gov't could still pressure gmail into delivering the data (even easier, less mail providers)
  * international mail can (is!?!) still be scanned by officials
  * psychological effect: Joe Schmoe will think: "I better not look at teen porn on the web or else I might get suspected". Once you get just the /feeling/ of being monitored, your freedom of speech is already seriously impaired.

https://www.google.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

Google offers SSL access now

Encrypt your stuff. They can still track the target IP addresses, but no URLs. Next stop: Widespread use of foreign proxies, then TOR.

agnostic rule

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody who is devout, or even remotely religious, should be allowed into government.

Re:Somebody fill me in here

[Sasayaki]

Australian here- It's pretty simple really. (Disclaimer: I've posted this before, but it bears repeating)

We have a political system where, instead of directly voting for a prime minister, we instead vote for our local representative; the party with the most seats gets to elect the prime minister. Essentially.

The problem comes when the two main political parties own almost equal seats, but many seats are "safe" seats. Think Texas. Is a Democrat ever going to be elected in a landslide in Texas? Nah. Is a Republican going to take San Fransisco in a landslide? Nah.

So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. Think Florida, which could go either way.

It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around Adelaide; a highly religious, conservative city known as "The City of Churches". So, politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are metaphorically sucking our version of the Bible Belt's dick in order to get those precious one or two seats, which means they can keep/gain government respectively.

Which means our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."

It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.

Honestly

[Dunbal]

A system like this wouldn't be so bad IF governments could be trusted with keeping their hands off the data UNTIL a crime was committed. Then, when they had physical evidence of a crime, a bit of data mining and searching could dig up other relevant facts. However the Australian government (famous for Task Force Argos, who took someone to court for posting a video freely available on YouTube citing child abuse) and other governments around the world have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to refrain from abusing such data.

Mention the words "terrorism" or "child pornography", and suddenly governments want to go so far as to break existing laws to prevent these crimes. However there is only one problem - if the person has not committed the crime yet, they are not a criminal. So we get cases built on "conspiracy to commit" and "intent to commit", cases which erode our freedom each single time. Because any psychologist will tell you that some very nasty thoughts can pass through the heads of very average people AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. The insides of our heads must remain inviolate and not subject to the state, or we become slaves. The law must draw the line at "yes but did the person go out and ACT on those fantasies?", not "did the person think about it". Otherwise everyone guilty of watching, writing or producing a murder mystery show is guilty of murder.