Access totelecommunicationsdata incivil proceedings
Pirate Party Australia
By SimonFrew
PiratePartyAustraliawouldliketotaketheopportunitytothanktheAttorney-General’s DepartmentandtheDepartmentofCommunicationsandtheArts forthechanceto providefeedbackontheaccesstotelecommunicationsdataincivilproceedingsreview. Wearewhollyopposedtoexpandingdataretentiontocivilproceedings,andbelievethe current legislation already unduly affectsthe privacy ofAustralian citizens.
Privacyisafundamentalhumanrightthathascomeundersustainedattack inthelast decade.InternetgiantslikeFacebookandGooglecreatedetailedprofilesof their customerssotheycanbettertargetadvertising,andothersites gather information on theiruserstosell.Wecarrytrackingdevicesinourpocketsandshareourliveson socialmedia.Atthesametimesecurityandlaw enforcement agencies have campaignedfor,andinmanycaseshavebeengrantedtheabilityandlegalauthorityto monitor ordinary citizens with little tono legal oversight.
Therehavebeencountlessarticlesdeclaringprivacydead1,and perhaps from such a perspective,allowingdataretainedunderthe Telecommunications (Interception and Access)Amendment(DataRetention)Act2015to beusedincivilcaseswouldbe acceptable.However,suchargumentsoverlooktherealityof howwechooseto reveal ourselves tothe outside world and how we view privacy in the context ofour own lives.
Privacyisaperceivedstatewherewearefree from unwanted observation or interference.Itistheabilitytocontrolwhatwerevealofourselvestotheoutsideworld.It existsasariskcalculuswheneverwechoosetorevealsomethingaboutourselves.We balanceourabilitytocontrolourinformationagainsttheperceivedbenefitsandrisksof exposure2.
WhenoptingtoshareinformationontheInternet,whetheritbeonsocialmedia or in exchangeforservices,wearedoingthisvoluntarily.We choose what we are sharing, withwhom,andhaveatleastsomeunderstandingoftherisksposed by data mining. Theindividualisstillexercisingcontroloverhowtheirlifeisrevealedtotheoutside world.
Privacyisimportantfordemocracyitself.Peopleneedtobeabletofreelyassociate, debate,questionandorganiseinsupportoftheirbeliefs.Unduesurveillancecausesa
‘chillingeffect’onpoliticalspeechaspeopleself-censortoavoidscrutiny.Whilstprivacy hasapoliticalaspect it should not be seen as separate from personal privacy. “Equal rightsofpersonalchoice,associationandexpression not only protect the political freedom and equality ofindividuals, but their personal freedom and equality too.”3
1
2TamaraDinev,HengXu,JeffH.SmithandPaulHart Informationprivacyandcorrelates:anempirical attempt tobridgeanddistinguishprivacy-relatedconceptsinEuropean Journal ofInformation Systems (2013) 22, 295–316
3Lever,AnnabellePrivacy RightsandDemocracy: A ContradictioninTerms?ContemporaryPolitical
TheoryMay2006,Volume5, Issue2,pp142–162
Mandatorydataretentionchangestheprivacylandscape.Itmakesusingacomputeror carryingaroundamobilephoneapublicact.Itshrinkstheprivatespaceofcitizens significantly.
Tounderlinetheimportanceofprivacytoindividuals,wedonothavetolookfurther thanthecurrentfederalgovernment.Illustrativeexamplesaretheappealsthat both Attorney-GeneralGeorgeBrandis4 andPrimeMinisterMalcolmTurnbull5 arefightingto avoidthereleaseoftheirMinisterialdiaries.ThereisadeepironythattheMinisterwho putforwardtheoriginaldataretentionlegislation and is further putting forward its proposedexpansiontocivilcasesisfightingsohardtokeep his own Ministerial businesssecret.Surely,iftheycanfightmultipleappealsto defendtheirownprivacy, they can understand the opposition todata retention and its expansion tocivil cases?
Thedataretainedunderthe Telecommunications (Interception and Access) legislation revealsdetailed,privateandpersonalinformationabouteveryone.Everytimesomeone connectstotheInternet,everytimetheirphonepingsatower,everytimetheymakea calltheyarecreatingpersonaldatathatcanbeusedto revealdetailedpersonal informationabouttheirlives.ItclearlystatesthatdatacollectedundertheAct is considered to be personal information and is subject to the Australian Privacy Principles. From the legislation:
(2) InformationthatiskeptunderthisPart,orinformationthatisinadocumentkept underthisPartistaken, forthepurposesofthePrivacyAct1988,tobepersonal information aboutan individual iftheinformationrelatesto:
(a)theindividual;or
(b)acommunicationtowhich theindividual is a party.6
Inorderfor datacollectedunderthedataretentionregimetobemadeavailableto lawyersincivilcases,itisclearthatan exception will be required thus reducing protections forcitizens under the Privacy Act.
4
-secret-from-labors-mark-dreyfus-20160906-gr9n72.html
5
6
Oneclearexampleofhowdatacollectedisprivateinformationismobilephonelocation trackingdata.Itcreatesadetailedpictureofyoureverymovementdayafter day.This wasdemonstratedbyaGermanGreensMPin2009.Whenherequestedsixmonthsof hisphonedatafromDeutscheTelekom,hewasabletogenerateamapofhis every movementtodemonstratetheprivacyrisksfromdataretention.7 Theinformationgave regularupdatesonhislocationformonthsonend,amountingtoconstantlocational surveillance.
Therisksposedbysuchdatabecomingavailableto lawyersaresignificant.Eachtime dataissharedwithanoutsideentity,itcreatesanotherlocationwherethedatamustbe protectedfromaccidentalordeliberatedistribution.Itisarguablethat despitesome significant leaks, including Victorian Police documents being uncovered in aBikie club-house in 20138, law enforcement agencies have a higher standard of data protectionthanlawfirms.Lawfirmshavebeenvictimsofhackingincidentsinincreasing numbersinrecentyearswiththeLawCouncilofAustraliaissuingawarningthat more needs tobe done toprotect sensitive data held by lawyers in December last year9.
Theargumentthatwarrantlessmasssurveillanceisnecessaryfor lawenforcement agenciestocatchcriminalsandterroristsisbasedonthinevidence1011 atbest.Thereis atleastsometheoreticalupsidetocomefromthewholesalelossofprivacythrough dataretention.Withtheproposaltoexpandaccesstothedatacollectedforcivilcases, there is no upside forordinary citizens atall.
7
8
9
10
11