Mass Surveillance of Australians

Wikipedia provides a good overview.  Surveillance is a topical issue in Australia and around the world.

This is noteworthy and concerning: 

Hacking powers.

The proposals seek to give the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation the right to hack in to computers and modify them.^[15]

What if modifying is falsifying data, that is my concern given the politicisation of intelligence agencies, Andrew Wilkie spoke of this when he was a whistleblower.

I find this quote very interesting.

I would advise David to undertake research and ask people.  Moreover, hold a public forum and ask people what they think about surveillance and agencies.  Come out of the secrecy and be open about it, perhaps other agencies around the world may take note from Australia’s lead, as I hope we are not as paranoid as other nations and some democracy does exist here.  I personally do not want commercial organisations to invade my privacy but they say tick box and you have to tick if you want access, if you say no, then no access, so it is not a choice.  I do not believe my life is being saved by ASIO, I believe we are at risk by governments who talk about terrorism and use this to justify surveillance when it is clearly not validated by the reality.  One woman per week is killed by domestic violence, that is far more concerning than the occasional issue which appears to be about mental health issues.  If some are being radicalised then the media is providing that impetus. Focus on what is wanted not what wanted if there is a desire for nonviolence and social order.  I have listened to politicians talking up hatred, violence and fear, that is not going to keep us safe, in my view.

There are perspectives below which provide insights into the issue of surveillance.  My concern would be largely around the lack of ethics, power and dishonesty and the problem of data being illegally gathered and tampered with for political, corporate or personal (revenge) reasons.  We saw the problem of media illegal tapping of telephones in the Levison Inquiry (UK), that is reason enough for people to be protected by privacy laws so they feel free to communicate what they feel and think without undue interference, this is the foundation of democracy, this brings happiness and creativity.  If we start to self censor for fear of drift nets of data collection or big brother, then we have lost something special, indeed it would be the loss of being free to be human.  I guess the question to ask David is ‘how would you feel if you were surveilled without your permission by anyone?  Would you allow that?  What of your children and family?  Think it through and like the public you may start to realise the importance of your own privacy and how precious it is.

For the record I do not give permission for my communications to be intercepted illegally by anyone or without my consent.  I do not agree with recorded messages by corporations indicating that I may be recorded and not giving me the option to say no, just informing me.  I have noticed that the right to privacy is not deeply understood nor respected.  People need to be free to communicate whatever they want even if it is on subjects that are considered contentious.  I tend to take a peace perspective whereby we encourage openness, diversity and fairness.  The internet is creating a forum for openness, that is clear from Facebook.  People are usually pretty open.  People in their converations might over react, or say something inflamatory or make threats in the heat of the moment, it may have nothing to do with a real threat.  When relying on data there is room for interference, corruption, set-ups and misinterpretation.  Certainly in my work as an analyst I saw the scope for error.  In research we are constantly managing error.  However, language, intent and statements may not reflect the truth of a person.  I prefer to put energy and resources into conflict resolution, openness, forums to get people to speak from perspectives.  There will be people in support of all sort of activities, I’d rather hear it in a forum so that others can put their view.  The ancient Agora’s encouraged openness as people’s ideas are challenged, contested and the levy of public opinion, certainly in my experience tends to be moderate.  Dialogue in my view is one of the keys.  Now some will say what of criminal activity?  Surveillance could be used but with good safeguards for the above reasons.  There has to be a balance.  You can’t record everyone as is clearly the case in Echelon through key words and voice recognition.  I think that is over the top, personally.  Work with other countries as part of a world community rather than a creating a Hobbesian world order.  We can look at creating a Lockean (libertarian) world order and put energy into cooperation, collaboration and respect.  I think face has been lost so to speak by countries indicating they are democratic and ethical when they are caught out not walking the talk,  the real discussion should be about global ethics, good neighbours, friendship and how to truly create a united nations without interference from those with vested interests.  If we can’t create a true democracy at home how will that happen globally?  Perhaps voting ethical people into politics might be a good move, educating children in values and ethics (peace education), broadcasting movies that inspire virtues, reaching your highest potential, creativity and real entertainment that is fun and uplifting instead of the constant barrage of violence.  Agencies may want to start a conversation about de-escalating violence in the media which impacts on young people.  They role model off it.  I am doing bullying work, kids copy their parents.  So if society says well it makes money we just turn a blind eye, it is only a movie, then they haven’t thought deeply about the messages all of us are responsible for sending out which add to the culture of violence, which agencies monitor.  Why not work for a culture of peace.  Is it really so hard?

I am not for all this surveillance, I think it is too much and innocent people who are passionate may get unfairly targetted or those creating positive change could be undermined (bullied).  Certainly any activist groups find themselves surveilled.  In a democracy that shouldn’t happen in the spirit of freedom of speech.  In my view the nonviolent contrasts bring to us better decision making and people being challenged to think issues through more deeply.  I personally see no enemies I just see issues to be researched, understood and provide solutions to resolve conflict, tension, hatred and division.  There are many ways that can work that do not require surveillance. Unquestioned statements can be perceived that everyone agrees because people don’t say anything.  Elections are a key point, politicians will say they have a mandate, but we can’t be sure they were voted in because people agreed with their policy, mostly people just apathetically vote, they do not feel actively engaged or part of the democratic process.  The same applies to invasions of privacy, people may not like it but they accept it, as they are disempowered.   If you really want answers, go and ask people directly in a spirit of democracy you may find different perspectives emerge, to me that is the greatest national security, freedom of speech (without violence or hate).  I think the key question is – do we really want to try living a real democracy or do we keep pretending?

Some information about mass surveillance from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_Australia#Spying_on_citizens_abroad

Mass surveillance in Australia occurs through a variety of means affecting telephone, internet and other communications networks, financial systems, vehicle and transit networks, international travel, access to government services and other parts of society.

Communications

Telephone

Australia is known to be an avid user of telephone surveillance. In 2003, Australia issued 75% more wiretap warrants than the US did and this was 26 times greater than the US on a per capita basis.^[1] In 2012 it was reported that year-on-year “Access to private data has increased by 20 per cent by Australia’s law enforcement and government agencies – and with no warrant.”^[2]

In addition, Australia requires that pre-paid mobile telecommunications providers verify the identity of individuals before providing service.^[3][4]

Internet

According to Greens‘ Senator Scott Ludlam, Australian law enforcement agencies were issued 243,631 warrants to obtain telecommunications logs in the period from July 2010 to June 2011, which vastly overshadowed the 3500-odd legal intercepts of communications.^[5]

In 2013 it was reported that under Australian law state, territory and federal law enforcement authorities can access a variety of ‘non-content’ data from internet companies like Telstra, Optus and Google with authorization by senior police officers or government officials rather than judicial warrant, and that “During criminal and revenue investigations in 2011-12, government agencies accessed private data and internet logs more than 300,000 times.”^[6]

Google‘s transparency report shows a consistent trend of growth in requests by Australian authorities for private information, constantly rising approximately 20% year-on-year. The most recent published volume for the period ending December 2013 indicates a volume of around four individual requests per calendar day.^[7]

Telstra‘s transparency report for the period 1 July – 31 December 2013 does not include requests by national security agencies, only police and other agencies. Nevertheless, in the six month period 40,644 requests were made, 36,053 for “Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks” (name, address, date of birth, service number, call/SMS/internet records. Call records include called party, date, time and duration. Internet information includes date, time and duration of internet sessions and email logs from Telstra-administered addresses^[8]), 2,871 for “Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls”, 270 for “Court orders”, 1450 for “Warrants for interception or access to stored communications” (real time access): an average of around 222 requests per calendar day.^[9]

In 2013 more than 500 authors including five Nobel prize winners and Australian identities Frank Moorhouse, John Coetzee, Helen Garner, Geraldine Brooks and David Malouf signed a global petition to protest mass surveillance^[10] after the whistleblower Edward Snowden‘s global surveillance disclosures informed the world, including Australians, that they are being monitored by the National Security Agency‘s XKeyscore system and its boundless informant. Snowden had further revealed that Australian government intelligence agencies, specifically the Australian Signals Directorate, also have access to the system as part of the international Five Eyes surveillance alliance.^[11]

In August 2014 it was reported^[12] that law-enforcement agencies had been accessing Australians’ web browsing histories via internet providers such as Telstra without a warrant (Optus confirmed that they cooperate with law enforcement, and Vodafone did not return a request for comment). The revelations came less than a week after government attempts to increase their surveillance powers through new legislation allowing offensive computer hacking by government intelligence agencies, and mere months after outrage surrounding the government’s offer to share personal information about citizens with Five Eyes intelligence partners.^[13]

As of August 2014, no warrant is required for organizations to access the so-called ‘metadata’ information of private parties. This is information regarding “calls and emails sent and received, the location of a phone, internet browsing activity. There is no access to the content of the communication, just how, to or from whom, when and where.” Under current law many organisations other than police and security agencies can get access to this information, including “any agency that collects government revenue”,^[5] for example the RSPCA,^[5][14] the Australian Crime Commission,^[2] the Australian Securities and Investments Commission,^[2] the Australian Tax Office,^[2] Medicare,^[2] Australia Post,^[2] the Australian Fisheries Management Authority,^[5] the Victorian Taxi Services Commission,^[5] the Victorian Transport Accident Commission,^[5] local councils^[14] and foreign law enforcement agencies.^[14]

The Australian Communications and Media Authority provides instructions for internet service providers and other telecommunications providers about their law enforcement, national security and interception obligations.

2014 proposals

A range of proposals are under discussion that affect surveillance of the population by government in conjunction with commercial service providers.

Hacking powers

The proposals seek to give the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation the right to hack in to computers and modify them.^[15]

Single computer warrant to become umbrella surveillance

The proposals seek to give the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation the power to spy on whole computer networks under a single computer-access warrant.^[15]

Spying on citizens abroad

The proposals seek to give the Australian Secret Intelligence Service the power to collect intelligence on Australian citizens overseas.^[15]

Law against media and whistleblowing

Section 35P of the proposals seeks to create a new criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for revealing information about so-called ‘special intelligence operations’. There are no exceptions listed, and the law would apply to journalists even if they were unaware that they were revealing information about such an operation. Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus called the measure “an unprecedented overreach”.^[15]

Mandatory data retention

Mandatory data retention for two years of data relating to the internet and telecommunications activity of all Australians is currently under discussion.^[14][15]

On Tuesday, August 5, government Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull complained about “waking up to newspaper headlines concerning the government’s controversial plan for mandatory data retention”, stating the government “risked unnecessary difficulties by pushing ahead with the data retention regime without fully understanding the details”. In 2012, Turnbull had opposed mandatory retention.^[16]

On Friday, August 8, Australia’s federal privacy commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, stated he felt it remained “unclear” exactly what data was to be retained, and that “there is the potential for the retention of large amounts of data to contain or reveal a great deal of information about people’s private lives and that this data could be considered ‘personal information’ under the Privacy Act“.^[16]

Later in the month, the head of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) appealed for access to private citizens’ data on the grounds that commercial entities may already be collecting it.^[17]

Finance

Australians rejected a national identity card system in 1986, however the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) developed a tax file number (TFN) system instead.

Travel

International

Australia and the European Union have signed in international agreement regarding the advanced sharing of traveler passenger name records for international travelers. These records typically include significantly more information that merely the name of the passenger.

In addition to passenger information and standard radar, Australia uses the Jindalee Operational Radar Network to detect individual boats and planes in the north and west of the country.

Domestic

Vehicles are tracked by a range of systems including Automatic Number Plate Recognition, video and sensor-based traffic surveillance networks, cellular telephone tracking (if a device is known to be in the vehicle) and automated toll networks. The SCATS system, owned by the New South Wales government and initially deployed in Sydney, is a widely used traffic surveillance system in the country that is known under various other names in Adelaide (ACTS), Canberra (CATSS), Melbourne (SCRAM), the Northern Territory (DARTS) and Perth (PCATS).

Mass transit

NSW

In December 2014, certain universities such as Sydney University delayed collaboration with the new Opal card system scheduled to fully replace existing, anonymous paper tickets on New South Wales mass transit, citing privacy concerns,^[18] whereas Macquarie University, University of New South Wales and Australian Catholic University had already agreed to provide the “student data” to the card network.

Other states

The extent and frequency to which individual traveler data is released without a warrant remains poorly documented for the following systems:

• go card, Brisbane’s smartcard system
• Metrocard, Adelaide’s smartcard system
• myki, Melbourne’s smartcard system
• SmartRider, Perth’s smartcard system

Related law

Australia
This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Australia
Constitution[show]
Monarchy[show]
Executive[show]
Legislature[show]
Judiciary[show]
Elections[show]
States and territories[show]
Local government[show]
Related topics[show]
Other countries Atlas Politics portal

This section outlines the main legal references for mass surveillance in Australia.

National

Under Australian law, the following acts are prominent federal law in the area of surveillance.

• Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (formerly known as the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979)
• Telecommunications Act 1997
• Surveillance Devices Act 2004
• Privacy Act 1988

A separate body of state-level laws also exists.

International agreements

Australia is part of the Five Eyes international surveillance network, run by the United States National Security Agency and generally protected from public scrutiny citing ‘national security’ concerns.

See also

Australia portal

• Mass surveillance industry
• Defence Science and Technology Organisation, particularly the Wide Area Surveillance Branch of the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Division (ISRD) with respect to Jindalee Operational Radar Network
• Five Eyes
• Internet censorship in Australia and Censorship in Australia
• Passenger name record
• Pine Gap, Shoal Bay Receiving Station, HMAS Harman and Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station
• Telephone recording laws#Australia