Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australia Passes 'Lite' Data Retention Laws

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the naming-names dept.

Australia 47

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."

cancel ×

47 comments

What's the problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41091521)

If you have nothing to hide...

Re:What's the problem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41092751)

If you have nothing to hide...

I too have nothing to hide. I never wear clothes and never use curtains.

All your spam (0)

vantango (719830) | about 2 years ago | (#41091539)

are belong to us.

Used to be worse (4, Interesting)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 years ago | (#41091559)

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 [wikipedia.org] , 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 (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41091605)

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 (4, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 years ago | (#41091663)

Actually, the Greens voted against it [delimiter.com.au] , 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 (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41091727)

From Slashdot's link: Greens Senator Scott Ludlam described the reforms as a targeted, 'lite' version of the Federal Government's proposed data retention laws, and with more oversight.
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power.

They seemed to be against some previous bill, but approve this one. Am I reading it right? If so, then screw them.

Re:Used to be worse (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 years ago | (#41091815)

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 (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41091885)

Yes, I read that they argued against it. But he is quoted as backing the "reforms". What exactly is that supposed to mean? And which prejudices are you talking about? If it's against undue authority, then I guess you got me, doing what, I don't know. If the government wants to catch a guy, let them set up a honey pot, and see if he takes the bait. Interception of communications like this is unacceptable. And then passing on to foreigners on their say so that he violated one or more of their laws? My god... It will be abused. That should be a given. It will be used against whistle-blowers and political enemies.

Re:Used to be worse (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 2 years ago | (#41091947)

Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power

Read it again; that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. Maybe you should try and track down his actual words, so you can read what he really said in context.

Also, this law isn't about intercepting actual communications (they already have wiretap laws that allow them to do that). This is about obtaining ISP records - IP addresses and so forth - not the actual data being transferred.

I certainly agree that we don't want more online surveillance, and there's no question it will be abused. But in your posts you're leaping to incorrect conclusions like it's an Olympic event. Slow down, learn more about it, then your rage need not be so blind. And go bark up the red and blue trees, not the green one; they're a lot more on your side (in this at least) than the mainstream parties.

Re:Used to be worse (4, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41092151)

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.

Re:Used to be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41094199)

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.

They've only been the sole power balance holders since the last election. Prior to that, the Coalition + the 2 independents could prevent legislation from passing. Luckily the independent Senator Nick Xenophon (who remains in the Senate still) is probably one of the most worthy politicians in our parliament.

He was kicked out in the last election.

True, which is great, however due to 'backroom' preference deals, all the people who voted above-the-line for the libertarian LDP (Liberal-Democratic Party) in Victoria ended up giving their votes to the christian-conservative-ish DLP (Democratic Labor Party), their votes got a DLP member elected to the Senate because the LDP preferenced them higher than Liberal or Labor, a move which, seemingly, most LDP voters once made fully aware of were not at all happy about.

Luckily, as discussed earlier, now the Greens are the sole power balance holders, and when the ALP and the Coalition are in disagreement, the DLP member's vote is completely irrelevant.

Re:Used to be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41096483)

The preferencing arrangements are publicly available prior to the election - the LDP preferencing the DLP over the major parties could well be different to what their supporters would have done, but there's nothing 'backroom' about it.

Re:Used to be worse (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41107435)

All good points. I was trying to keep it simple, the preference dealing earned him the nick name "Mr 2%" since that was his primary tally as opposed to the tally after preferences. IIRC, the Greens have held the BOP several times in the last decade or so. The Aussie senate has operated like this for a long time, I'm old enough to remember campaign slogans such as "keep the bastard's honest". Like or loath Bob Brown he did get into office via a notable political achievement.

Re:Used to be worse (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#41091941)

Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power.

They seemed to be against some previous bill, but approve this one. Am I reading it right? If so, then screw them.

Mate, I don't think you are reading right.

The current legislation allow the police wiretap phone calls with a valid warrant. Extra police power may be needed in regards with Internet traffic - because, even with a valid warrant, they can't "wiretap" the internet traffic without the ISP collaboration. To bring back the balance, there is a need of a law requiring the ISP to "wiretap". And, this would be this reform to police power the Ludlam may be thinking is necessary.

Now, for phone tapping, the pre-existence of a valid warrant is necessary. Why Internet should be different? Why the police should be able require an ISP to "retain traffic" even without a warrant - as required by this law opposed by Ludlam?
Letting aside the matter of the "wiretapped person rights", why should the ISP pay for the storage and the cost of securing that storage (as one of the latest anonymous stunts was to show [news.com.au] that any captured data by an ISP isn't that easy to secure?).

Re:Used to be worse (2, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41092029)

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 (1)

Snappyolyness (2713751) | about 2 years ago | (#41092129)

It's called a compromise

And sometimes compromise isn't acceptable. If the 2 year law was already in effect, and this law shortened the time that the information must be stored, then maybe I'd see the point (continually attack the law until nothing remains). But that's not what happened; this is just an entirely new law seeking to violate people's privacy and expand the government's power needlessly out of, again, irrational fear of criminals. When it comes to rights, this "compromise" simply isn't acceptable.

Well, you're bordering on the "nothing to hide" argument, so what's the point?

Re:Used to be worse (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 years ago | (#41093155)

Given that the new law (I actually read the text of the bill on the parliament web page and not just the news articles) requires the police to obtain a warrant before they can actually obtain the stored data, I have no problems with it.

Re:Used to be worse (1)

Snappyolyness (2713751) | about 2 years ago | (#41102423)

Given that it's unnecessary to store people's data, I, on the other hand, do have a problem with it. The intentions of such laws are always to stop the "bad guys," and yet they always affect everyone. Everyone's data will be stored, requests for the data will likely be rubber stamped, and then they'll have loads of information about you. This is exactly why I applaud encryption, and it's highly likely that the "bad guys" will be using it anyway.

Re:Used to be worse (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41107303)

And sometimes compromise isn't acceptable.

Of course, and that's where politics fails and wars succeed. Be careful of what you hold sacred, it has a price.

Nobody is taking away the right to encrypt, and cops don't like rubber stamps any more than they like obtaining warrants, it's all just "pointless paperwork" to your average doughnut muncher.

Re:Used to be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41091721)

And the greens have shown they're just as authoritarian as the other parties and not worth reelecting.

Can you table please what led you to reach this conclusion? Did the greens vote in favor of it?

Re:Used to be worse (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 2 years ago | (#41091905)

No this is the first step. The previous proposal is still going through the motions.

Re:Used to be worse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41092421)

Ürününüze ve/veya hizmetinize yeteri kadar güveniyor musunuz? Yeni müterilere nasl ulaacaksnz? Minimum maliyet ile maksimum müteri kitlesini bulma konusunda neler yapmanz gerekiyor? Yeni müteri bulma yöntemleri içinde en etkin yol Dijital Pazarlama sisteminin kullanlmasdr

Dijiplat – Dijital Pazarlama [dijiplat.com] Platformu olarak biz sizlere, müteri bulma yöntemleri için en etkin 200 ipucunu vereceiz. Çok yakn gelecekte, ister istemez hayatta kalmak isteyen her firma bu “ müteri bulma “ yöntemlerini kullanmak zorunda kalacak. Dijiplat olarak, geni uzman kadromuz ve tecrübemiz ile bu hizmeti size veriyor, sralayacamz tüm kriter ve ipuçlarn sizin için hayata geçiriyoruz, ancak asla bizimle çalmanz için bir çabamz veya talebimiz yok. Gidin bizden iyisini bulabiliyorsanz bir dakika düünmeyin. Bir eyi sakn unutmayn, kimden bu hizmeti alyor olursanz olun, kafanzn takld hereyi yine bize danabilirsiniz.

Bizim uzmanlmz müteri bulma, dijital dünyada rekabet eden yaklak 400.000 tane firma var, siz bizi düünmeyin, kendiniz için yeni müteri bulma yöntemlerini bir an önce uygulayn veya uygulatn, aksi taktirde, dijital pazarlamann etkisi her geçen dakika artyor ve rekabette bir adm daha geride kalyorsunuz. Potansiyel müterilerinizi bakalar buluyor bunu sakn unutmayn.

So the greens aren't so cool after all (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41091567)

I've been saying that these people are no different from the rest of the pack. Let's hope they get bumped out of office during their next election. And I hope Americans are noticing when they see Green candidates on their ballot. All their sweet talk will amount to nothing once they get in. "Reforms" BAH!

Re:So the greens aren't so cool after all (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#41091741)

I've been saying that these people are no different from the rest of the pack. Let's hope they get bumped out of office during their next election.

Unless you show that the greens vote for it, I would consider this a trolling post (factually incorrect and inflammatory). So... [citation needed] please.

Re:So the greens aren't so cool after all (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41091781)

If I repeat my response I made to to someone else, it will be modded redundant. Read the linked article.... Oh what the hell, here:

"Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power."

It appears to me he's approving this so called "lite" version. That stinks.

From now on please check to see if I responded to the same question. It will save my fingers some wear and tear. TNX

Re:So the greens aren't so cool after all (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#41091855)

If I repeat my response I made to to someone else, it will be modded redundant. Read the linked article.... Oh what the hell, here:

I wouldn't worry too much.

"Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power."

It appears to me he's approving this so called "lite" version.

From It appears to me... to The bastards still approved of it is a bit of a distance (this 2nd citation is to show you I read your other reply). What if you are reading wrong?

E.g. what if "this law" != "this reform"? I.e. what if the greens think that:
- something supplementary needs to be legislated to enable the police work better in regards with Internet - this being the reform
- but still oppose the retention of data by the ISP without a prior warrant - meaning they still don't support this law which allows data retention without a warrant.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Re:So the greens aren't so cool after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41092143)

I think your reading comprehension is a bit shot, man. It said nothing about backing this law specifically.

What is so wrong with this? (2)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about 2 years ago | (#41091581)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41091639)

This law itself is an abuse. It's not a matter of if it effects you. It effects everybody though to some degree and may eventually effect you significantly. These laws could potentially be used to target a huge selection of people. Despite it being "limited". The powers at be already have too much authoritarian power. We need to remove power from those with power.

Re:What is so wrong with this? (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41091851)

yeah gudammit... stupid laws prevent me from killing my next door neighbor and getting away with it. these so called "laws" are much too strict and affect way too many people... and stuff

Re:What is so wrong with this? (1)

Snappyolyness (2713751) | about 2 years ago | (#41091967)

Yes, exactly. Only guilty people would argue against this law (just like people who argue against the TSA are terrorists). The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that are insusceptible to corruption and cannot make mistakes. What's the harm attempting to record everyone, innocent or not? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

These types of laws, which punish everyone be they innocent or guilty of something, are perfectly comparable to laws that state that you cannot murder innocents!

Re:What is so wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093195)

So thoughtcrime is only a problem when you are restricted from commiting it? List the powers in question, WRT this specific law, that pose a practical problem affecting real people. Or is this some victimless opression situation where that doesn't matter?

Re:What is so wrong with this? (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41091643)

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".

Re:What is so wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41092087)

That's complete and utter nonsense. This isn't fascist America, everyone in Australia knows that only the guilty are charged.

Re:What is so wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41093247)

The frog thing is BS, thing will jump out. The absuses you claim will happen will be the results of shitty warrants, a problem that's existed all along and the solution for which is dealing with shitty warrants, that's the only thing that will fix a problem and a whole lot of other one's to boot. If there is no warrant this law still protects your data as well, possibly better (ISPs now have a concrete set of rules and will have an easier time resisting pressure: "the data is being recorded, stop bugging us and get a warrant if you need it that badly"), than before.

Re:What is so wrong with this? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41092331)

Yes it give the police a smidgen of more power,

It gives them power that is unnecessary. If the police have legitimate cause, then getting a warrant should be no big deal. Judges are often on call 24 hours a day, and can look at a summary of the evidence and issue a warrant in a few minutes. If getting a warrant in a legitimate situation is a problem in Australia, then they should fix that problem instead of harassing the ISPs.

Re:What is so wrong with this? (1)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about 2 years ago | (#41105775)

They still have to get that warrant, but thanks for the TFP (much less TFA).

What does this govt have against civil rights? (5, Informative)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#41091585)

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 [smh.com.au]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/authorities-gain-power-to-collect-australians--internet-records-20120822-24m03.html [smh.com.au]

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/ [zdnet.com]
http://www.dailydot.com/news/australia-cybersecurity-bill-privacy/ [dailydot.com]

Re:What does this govt have against civil rights? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41091623)

What does this govt have against civil rights?

Laws.

We're so independent. (3, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#41091657)

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.

Re:We're so independent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41091829)

Never mind all that nonsense (oh wait, it isn't nonsense)...

I just want /. to stop using that stooooopid Croc Dundee hat as the icon for anything Oz.

Does anyone note that EU (first line) is rejecting the US laws (second line), while we idiots subscribe to both.

Re:We're so independent. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41091857)

Does anyone note that EU (first line) is rejecting the US laws (second line), while we idiots subscribe to both.

with any luck they'll contradict each other and when they finally get tested in court we'll find out how toothless they really are

Re:We're so independent. (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#41092241)

Hey don't worry, in 20 years it'll be much different: Australian politicians will have discovered a backbone by then when it comes to standing up to both Europe and the United States, I'd guess.

(Instead they'll be falling over themselves to please China.)

What is it about Australians (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#41092009)

Why do Australians need such close watching? What could they possibly be up to? Aren't they too drunk to be a threat?

This concept COULD be reasonable (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#41097259)

An administrative demand by law enforcement to not destroy data pending a warrant is reasonable, as long as:

* The demand expires within a few business days, where "business days" is defined as any day that the court is available to the prosecutors.
* The company served and the parties that have an interest in the data - including the person whose data is being sought - have the same or greater rights to seek to quash the subpoena as they would if the subpoena were issued in a timely manner and by sheer coincidence the data had not yet been destroyed.

In other words, procedures like this should not be used to buy more than a very small amount of time for the state to make its case. They should only be used to prevent the data from being lost when the court is unavailable to issue a warrant or to prevent a case from being lost because the data was destroyed a day or two before the warrant was actually issued.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...