There is a data deficit in government’s metadata plan
AAP/Joe Castro
If there is one member of cabinet who understands the ins and outs of metadata, it’s Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Yet Turnbull has so far been nowhere to be heard as the government
tries to explain its plan to force telecommunication companies and
internet providers to retain the data for two years.
Turnbull is known to have been angry to have read about the cabinet
national security committee’s metadata decision in the media. The
powers-that-be in the Prime Minister’s office are known to be usually
reluctant to deploy Turnbull.
But still, if the message is to be got out, he should be at the
forefront in explaining what the government is on about. On Wednesday
Tony Abbott created some confusion, and Attorney-General George Brandis
when he appeared on Sky was trying so hard to avoid saying the obvious
that he did little to clarify.
The plan is that telcos and internet service providers would be asked
to keep data for two years, so potential evidence did not disappear
into the commercial dustbin. “We’re not asking for new information,”
Abbott said. “We’re simply asking the telecommunications providers to
continue to keep information that they currently do.”
The data includes phone numbers and who owns the phones that make and
receive the calls, but not the content of the calls, and the addresses
of websites visited but not what was looked at on the site (for example,
it would be known that you visited The Conversation and for how long
but not what articles you read there).
In fact, the data is potentially very extensive - as a log prepared by a Guardian Australia journalist shows.
The precise detail of the government proposal is still being worked
out. “What has been decided is an in-principle decision,” Brandis said.
The extent to which social media would be included was being discussed.
The situation of Skype is unclear.
The go-to image for intelligence agency officials, Abbott and Brandis
is the comparison with the letter and envelope. “The metadata is the
material on the front of the envelope and the contents of the letter
will remain private,” Abbott said.
“We want to maintain the sharp distinction between metadata and content,” Brandis said.
But inevitably the edges will be fuzzy and that will increase the
criticism of the proposal. As is the line between uses. Abbott said the
data was “absolutely critical not just in the fight against terrorism,
but in crime fighting more generally”.
The government’s position in the debate is weakened because it has
released its proposal before it has finalised it. Was there such a need
for rush? Perhaps it would have been better to wait until there had been
full consultation with the telcos.
The government hopes to get Labor support to pass legislation on
metadata (which will come after that for its other anti-terrorism
initiatives). If it can, this would deal the crossbench out. But the ALP
won’t commit itself until more information is available.
Bill Shorten said on Wednesday: “We believe that security of
Australians is a first order issue, full stop. But we also have concerns
that when you store so much information about so many Australians that
this needs to be done very carefully and in a very considered way. We
are concerned that the Government is going to ask the internet providers
to pay for these measures which will see a new internet tax on all
Australians. We are also concerned to be very careful that there is no
risk that ordinary Australians are being treated as if they are
criminals.”
Meanwhile, there is some crossbench scepticism and, in the case of
the the Greens and the libertarian Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm,
straight out opposition.
Leyonhjelm says data retention “treats everybody as a criminal in waiting”.
He recently sat in on a Senate committee hearing about the
telecommunications interception act where internet service providers
gave evidence. “They pointed out that metadata frequently includes
content. In tweets, absolutely; emails will include the heading. So it’s
not just content-free. It’s highly intrusive.
“ISPs are going to have to establish data bases to store [the
material]. They have no expertise for keeping data secure,” he says.
“It’s a honey pot for anyone who wants to go snooping.”
Independent senator Nick Xenophon attacks from another angle. “I am sceptical that it will be effective,” he says.
A US government advisory panel, reporting early this year, said: “We
are aware of no instance in which the program [collecting phone metadata
and run by the National Security Agency] directly contributed to the
discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a
terrorist attack. And we believe that in only one instance over the past
seven years has the program arguably contributed to the identification
of an unknown terrorism suspect.”
Retaining the metadata “could be a mega waste of resources”, Xenophon thinks.
Clive Palmer, whose PUPs would hold sway if Labor could not be
brought onside, hasn’t yet looked at the proposals in the anti-
terrorism package. But in general he regards them as a “diversion from
the main economic issues. The government is trying to win popularity
back with jingoism”.
The metadata debate has a long way to run.
No comments:
Post a Comment