Australia Passes 'Lite' Data Retention Laws

schliz writes "Australia's parliament has passed a bill that will allow law enforcement agencies to force internet service providers to store data on subscribers while an official warrant is sought. The changes move Australia closer to its two-year-old proposal to accede to the 2004 Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, designed to assist with international cybercrime investigations through sharing of information on persons of interest, among other avenues."

Comments

Used to be worse

[Namarrgon]

This is much less sweeping than previous proposals. ISPs don't have to start retaining data until asked by authorities (for a specific person), and they can't actually get that data without a warrant.

OTOH, it now requires us to give foreign governments (co-signers of the Budapest Convention, including the US) the right to ask for similar access; "international cooperation to the widest extent possible" with their investigations.

Re:Used to be worse

[fustakrakich]

This is much less sweeping than previous proposals.

There's still nothing good about it. And the greens have shown they're just as authoritarian as the other parties and not worth reelecting. It doesn't matter that the law was watered down a bit. The bastards still approved of it. Shame on them. It so sad to see people give up their civil liberties so easily. And the bigger problem is that they give up mine at the same time (not specific to Australia). Majority rule can really suck sometimes.

Re:Used to be worse

[Namarrgon]

Actually, the Greens voted against it, and tried to have it amended to increase oversight, to narrow the scope of when data can be collected, and to provide a way to refuse data requests from foreign nations with inadequate privacy safeguards. These amendments were voted down by both the Government and the Coalition.

Re:Used to be worse

[Namarrgon]

Maybe you should read a little more on the subject, rather than jumping all over a single out-of-context quote. From that article I linked:

[The bill passed] despite vehement protests from the Greens, who argued strongly that the bill was “yet another” unnecessary expansion of the Government’s surveillance powers in Australia.

Seems to me you should be pissed off at the Gov and Coalition, since they're the ones who passed it, while the Greens were the ones arguing against it. But I can see from your other comments that you're really just looking for an excuse to jump to some conclusions about one of your favourite targets of prejudice.

Re:Used to be worse

[TapeCutter]

It's called a compromise, it may be a shock to some people but that's what politics is all about. Some people walk around on warm days wearing 'hoodies' and want no retention under any circumstances, some want everything ever written available to the police and would happily tattoo an id number on their forehead.

The previous bill called for retention on everyone's data for 2yrs, the one that passed said the police have to 'ask' the ISP to retain the data while they get a warrant and ISP's have to comply with the request. Unless you're at either end of the extremes on this issue it sounds like a very sensible compromise that retains privacy while adding extra hurdles to suspected criminals who are trying to erase their tracks. It's a minor tweak to the status-quo, a judge is still involved before anyone can rummage through your digital laundry.

Re:Used to be worse

[TapeCutter]

Seems to me you should be pissed off at the Gov and Coalition, since they're the ones who passed it, while the Greens were the ones arguing against it

What a lot of our US readers may be missing is that the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate and they have been in that position for a number of years now. If the govt and the opposition (Labor and Liberal) both vote for the bill then there is nothing the greens can do about it. If they follow party lines and oppose each other then the greens have the muscle to force a compromise by rejecting the legislation, if they do it twice in a row it can force a fresh election (as happened in the 70's).

The greens are in many ways the epitome of the phrase "perfection is the enemy of progress", however the role they play as mediator is a good one on many contentious issues. Under some circumstances a single independent can hold the balance of power, much of the "Great Aussie Firewall" stuff that was going around the last few years back was mainly political theater that was pandering to one such independent. He was a far-right christian who wanted to get rid of smut and propaganda, however after the trial of the GAF his own supporter's anti-abortion website was listed on Conroy's "leaked" black list. He was kicked out in the last election.

What is so wrong with this?

[zbobet2012]

To view the data still requires a warrant (just as any physical search does today). Yes it give the police a smidgen of more power, but this acts as a augmenter for detectives without impinging more on the rights of the individual. If it is abused, the same powers and edicts that keep all warrantless wire taps from being valid still apply and the additional collected data doesn't matter.

Re:What is so wrong with this?

[fustakrakich]

Yes it give the police a smidgen of more power...

Yes, it's always just a smidgen each damn time this stuff comes up. You like being cooked slowly, I take it? Evidently you won't mind spending months or years battling against false positives or trumped up charges and other abuses that will happen? Because it sure isn't a matter of "if", but "when".

What does this govt have against civil rights?

[CuteSteveJobs]

Australian has Attorney-General Nicola Roxon passed new laws allowing the authorities to "collect and keep Australians' internet records, including their web-browsing history, social media activity and emails." Roxon said the new powers will be used to find people "engaged in forgery, fraud, child pornography, and infringement of copyright and intellectual property".
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/new-law-to-control-cyber-data-20120822-24mur.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/authorities-gain-power-to-collect-australians--internet-records-20120822-24m03.html

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the laws went further than necessary, and the government had failed to explain why the far-reaching powers were needed: ''The European treaty doesn't require ongoing collection and retention of communications, but the Australian bill does." Ludlam said the new laws are a "lite" version of the laws Roxon had only two weeks ago promised to delay until after the next election. She didn't mention that when she announced her decision to delay those laws: everyone assumed it was over. Australian human rights lawyer Jen Robinson described it as a "A sad day for civil liberties."
http://www.zdnet.com/au/cybercrime-bill-passes-senate-set-to-become-law-7000002971/
http://www.dailydot.com/news/australia-cybersecurity-bill-privacy/

We're so independent.

[thegarbz]

Look at us. We're so independent. We're one of the few countries with a working economy. We're insulated against all the bad stuff, we have our own resources industry. We could shut out everyone. We're so awesomely independ....

Ooooh looky here Europe is doing something to screw their citizens, let's jump on that bandwagon.
Ooooh America is passing laws that benefit only major media companies and punishes citizens, we gotta be a part of that too.

Yes I'm trolling.