How then does this ubiquitous data retention impede the role of journalists, specifically investigative journalists and political reporters, and whistleblowers?
Reason 1: Meta Data Theft
Mandatory data retention requires Internet Service Providers (ISP) and Telecom companies to store data for 2 years.
Does this then pose a risk of being hacked? According to the Executive Officer of Electronic Frontier Australia (EFA), Jon Lawrence, 'yes', responding to questions he stated:
"What this is doing is so comprehensive that the info will be held at many different organisations that have varying levels of security, many of those won't be as sophisticated as Telstra, and even Telstra has security problems. The reality is that this information will be compromised, no question about it."This assessment appears to hold it's ground when backed up by the Symantec 2014 Internet Security Threat Report, stating:
"The total number of breaches in 2013 was 62 percent greater than in 2012 with 253 total breaches." and continues with "Eight of the breaches in 2013 exposed more than 10 million identities each. In 2012 only one breach exposed over 10 million identities."This would indicate a sever contradiction of national security and privacy, that the data retention bill itself aims to resolve.
Reason 2: Protect Journalists Source
If journalists are unable to perform their duties as fact checkers and investigative journalists then what good is press freedom, in the sense that there is no room to have a private discussion?
Responding to my questions Director of Civil Liberties Australia (CLA), Tom Vines, stated:
"Data retention will make it very hard, if not practically impossible, for a journalist to protect their source – whether they are a whistle-blower, a ‘leaky’ member of a political party or other vulnerable person." and continuing with "This lack of protection will mean we have fewer whistle-blowers and corporate and governance malfeasance will remain hidden."
Reason 3: Undefined Meta Data
Every device connected to the internet generates meta data and in a whole range of different ways.
Commenting on the bill is further complicated (to say the least) as the "data set" (what information is classified as "meta data") has not been defined and is set to come after the law has been passed. This is troubling in it's own right, as Prof George Williams states (SMH 29/12/2014):
"It states, in an unhelpful and cryptic fashion, that service providers must retain "information of a kind prescribed by the regulations" or "documents containing information of that kind" and continues with "This leaves the real work of defining metadata to the government at a later date. Its efforts so far do not instil confidence."Reason 4: Lack of Knowledge
Data retention isn't a bad idea, but the intention and potential for abuse must be questioned by even the most adamant supporter, especially when those in charge of voting fail to understand precisely what it is.
This is evident with Attorney General George Brandis' now infamous interview with Sky News presenter David Spears.
As well as specific understanding, there appears to be a general technological ignorance within the highest lawmakers in the country.
While this may lead some to laugh, the lack of accountability and respect for civil liberties is no laughing matter as it undermines the democratic foundations this society is built on.
Tom Vines from CLA contributes by stating:
"As with all of the recent government anti-terror laws the data retention bill is all about power and nothing about responsibilities. Where is the obligation to obtain a warrant or to demonstrate to an independent agency probable cause? Where is the democratic oversight and safeguards? Where are the criminal sanctions for misuse of information? Where, most importantly, is the evidence that justifies the scope of the scheme (e.g. the 2 year retention period) or the need for it – especially given international experience? We believe the police and intelligence community need to answer these questions honestly before imposing a system of mass surveillance on the Australian community."Reason 5: Australia Needs Whistleblowers
On ABC's Media Watch episode 'Data retention v media freedom', Cheif Writer of The West Australian, Steve Pennells, responds to the question 'Do you believe our society need whistleblowers':
"Of course it does, any society needs whistleblowers. In the absence of whistleblows you got to have complete faith in every level of government, and policing and the justice system. You'd be naive to think that."Ignoring the importance of whistleblowers only compounds the problems they raise instead of accepting the honesty and working on solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment