Australian surveillance ‘out of control’: 20% increase in 1 year

[Cyclops]

Access to private data has increased by 20 per cent by Australia’s law enforcement and government agencies – and with no warrant. Australians are 26 times more prone to be placed under surveillance than people in other countries, local media report.

 

In such a way, state structures accessed private information over 300,000 times last year – or 5,800 times every week, figures from the federal Attorney General’s Department showcase.

 

The data includes phone and internet account information, the details of out and inbound calls, telephone and internet access location data, as well as everything related to the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses visited, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) reports.

 

Australian media report that every government agency and organization use the gathered telecommunications data, and those include the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Tax Office, Medicare and Australia Post.

 

New South Wales (NSW) Police became the biggest users of the private data, with 103,824 access authorizations during the last year – a third of all information accessed by the security forces.

 

The news triggered massive public outrage, with Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam telling SMH, ‘‘This is the personal data of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of Australians, and it seems that just about anyone in government can get it.”

 

He said the move demonstrated the current data access regime was “out of control” and amounted to the framework for a “surveillance state”.

 

The reports come as the federal government proposes even wider surveillance powers, including a minimum two-year standard for telephone and web providers – a measure causing public controversy.

 

The president for the local NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Cameron Murphy, told the Australian Financial Review that, according to the statistics, recent proposals to step up police surveillance powers and keep internet and phone data for two years or more was little more than a “fishing expedition”.

 

“It’s stunning and completely outrageous that so much interception is going on,” Murphy said. “What seems to be happening now is this is being done as a matter of first course and not as a matter of last resort.”

 

The statistics gathered by the council demonstrate that Australians are 26 times more likely to be placed under surveillance than in comparable countries.

 

However, a spokesperson for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon indicated that “these new statistics show telephone interception and surveillance powers are playing an even greater role for police so they can successfully pursue kidnappers, murderers and organized criminals.”

 

Ludlam, on the other hand, detailed what the expansion should be accompanied by.

 

“It’s incumbent on the parliament’s national security inquiry to recommend some form of warrant authorization be introduced, and that there be a review and reduction of the government agencies that can access the personal communications data of millions of Australians,” he said.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Oz
Set to default text colour

[bufo marinus]

Yes it's an outrage these lazy doughnut munching cops don't even need a warrant,... time for another grow diary I feel,... and go on a fishing expedition of my own.

Last raid my charges were strangely dropped, true story.

I'm honestly starting to think it was because the search warrant wasn't executed properly. I never answered any questions as to what was going on in my home but the pigs marched in anyway.... however because I was prepared to fight the charges and look into why I was raided and why a search warrant was granted in the first place that they left me alone and never prosecuted me!!

This story re-enforces rule number 1, never talk to the police

[Cerberus]

How nice of them to throw in such large numbers to get the readers eyes wide open and ready to start worrying.

 

In my opinion, if you've never had to deal with the police in the past and you aren't committing any crimes worse than growing weed, you aren't going to get monitored.

 

If I'm not mistaken (and I think Bufo was saying this too), the court system still wants the police to follow procedures and the police know this. It obviously doesn't stop them trying but they also know there's a chance it will get thrown out of court, challenge them and it just might (or they'll drop the case, like in Bufo's sitch).

 

These people are just taking shortcuts when trying to catch people they've had difficulty catching, like narcotics importers, serial ram-radiers/rapists/bank robbers/gangs.

 

They're not randomly looking at IP data and phone records for everyday citizens or even small crime stuff.

 

I'm not ignoring this data or thinking "it can't happen to me" but we're not heading towards a “surveillance state” and them saying "Australians are 26 times more likely to be placed under surveillance than in comparable countries" is just political word-play aimed at getting average people over-worried about a non-existant threat to the average law abiding citizen, to get them on side to garner more votes for their team.

 

This is just the usual SMH sensationalising again, that paper has really gone downhill over the recent years.

 

But then there seems to be a quote given to the Financial Review?

 

Where did you get this information, I'm going to need a source link.

[Ferrethead]

They're not randomly looking at IP data and phone records for everyday citizens or even small crime stuff.

 

I'm not ignoring this data or thinking "it can't happen to me" but we're not heading towards a “surveillance state” and them saying "

 

Not true. The law states that the police can use this to investigate any criminal activity associated with a crime offering a maximum penalty of 7 years jail or more. Take a look at the maximum jail term for growing cannabis. Our current Governor General who is nothing but a labor party pawn has a lot to answer for, not just for her appalling conduct during the Peter Slipper saga, but for suggesting and pushing these measures through with little to no regard for anything other than her self righteous, self serving, high tea having idiocy.

 

The recent push to relax these laws enables law enforcement to monitor anyone they please if they SUSPECT they are involved in a crime carrying a max penalty of two years or more......which is pretty much everything. Max penalties for even the most minor of offences can get silly.

 

So, we all should be very worried about this. The sheer numbers stated above which are factual national records are frightening as we were all sold the line that this sort of investigation technique would only be used as an absolute last resort. I doubt we could say that we're at the last resort 300,000 times last year. It originally was instigated to fight the war on terror yet was extended to include the 7 year crime cut off. See how these things grow and grow....

 

"Those who are willing to give up on liberty for security deserve neither, and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

[Cerberus]

Not true. The law states that the police can use this to investigate any criminal activity associated with a crime offering a maximum penalty of 7 years jail or more. Take a look at the maximum jail term for growing cannabis. Our current Governor General who is nothing but a labor party pawn has a lot to answer for, not just for her appalling conduct during the Peter Slipper saga, but for suggesting and pushing these measures through with little to no regard for anything other than her self righteous, self serving, high tea having idiocy.

 

The recent push to relax these laws enables law enforcement to monitor anyone they please if they SUSPECT they are involved in a crime carrying a max penalty of two years or more......which is pretty much everything. Max penalties for even the most minor of offences can get silly.

 

So, we all should be very worried about this. The sheer numbers stated above which are factual national records are frightening as we were all sold the line that this sort of investigation technique would only be used as an absolute last resort. I doubt we could say that we're at the last resort 300,000 times last year. It originally was instigated to fight the war on terror yet was extended to include the 7 year crime cut off. See how these things grow and grow....

 

"Those who are willing to give up on liberty for security deserve neither, and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

 

Their political tricks have worked on you. They have you worried. You are right where they want you, living in fear and worry by only using an article designed to keep you in control and fearing the reach of the law.

 

This is one big exercise in crowd control, by instilling fear that you could get caught for whatever you are doing "wrong", you tend to watch your actions more.

 

People can be easily manipulated if they think someone may know their secret shame or fears that authorities, partners, bosses will find out about illegal/immoral actions.

 

Quotes like this "The news triggered massive public outrage" only serve to remind the public how they should react, the average readers/citizens are sheep and they need to be told what to think/do.

 

We are far from being a 'police state', but that's the point the Greens are trying to make you believe. Many other countries have had their "freedom" taken away without provocation and Australia is not going down that route.

 

I'm not saying the numbers stated aren't true, but the article is written in a broad way with no comparable numbers, just big numbers with hardly any context

[Faith]

Excellent conversation gents. Thinking conversation w/o unnecessary emotion or hype. You both have very valid angles. Cannabis is only illegal because they say it is.

 

Peace to you. v

[brick]

And 250,000 of those people are catholic priests and brothers.

[Ferrethead]

And 250,000 of those people are catholic priests and brothers.

 

.......too true.

 

I can understand your point of view regarding media scare tactics etc. But you're making a very large assumption about someone you know nothing about regarding the reasons I feel this way. Plus youre making a pretty stretched assumption that the media in this country is somehow connected to government and more pointedly law enforcement? Overall, this doesn't affect my daily life in any way that I know about so I'm not worried out of my mind.....yet

 

When writing on forums it's also easy to pen down feelings a bit more upfront, than what I probably feel, and its definitely easy to read it slightly different to how I intended as well.

 

Facts are facts and they exist with or without SMH blowing them up sensationally. My point is more along the lines of, give them an inch and they will take a mile. These laws were first introduced in the US contrary to their constitution decreeing they really cant. It was brought in as a counter terrorism measure initially as the only way to circumvent the US constitution was to invoke a clause to do with the National Defence. Now citizens of the US are the most secretly surveyed people on earth as a result of actions by others.

 

Again, yep I agree the media can stir up a storm by using certain language. But that is a much different conversations than that about whether the current levels of surveillance and new proposed levels are in the interest of the populace, or are desired by the populace.

 

Don't get me started on democracy and its flaws, nor how a democratic country is run by a socialist......this could go on for a while.

 

Sometimes I like to debate for the sake of debate too just to learn something new too.

[Faith]

If they are not 'protecting' the populace what/who are our governments protecting. What created the 'fear' (notwithstanding 9/11) and what are we meant to be afraid of.

 

Peace to you. v

[Cyclops]

I kind of agree with Cerberus especially in the fact that the medea beat up even the most innocuous into a huge deal. I cringe most times I read a newspaper or watch the news, as for those current affair type shows arrrgggh.

 

I'm not trying to be an alarmist and personally not overly worried but I think the article was worth sharing, forget about everything in the article except one line ‘‘There can’t be much in the way of working checks and balances if we have a 20 per cent surge in activity in one year, and more than 300,000 authorisations.’’

Considering that there were more than 300,000 authorizations in one year alone most Australians are involved, every person with an affected device corresponds with multiple people meaning those people are also being compromised. Even the oldies in a nursing home can be speaking to someone whose phone is tapped so they are in a way affected.

 

I was going to preface my original post with a personal experience, should have but didn't.

Five years ago my 17 year old nephew was charged with possession and supply, for some reason his mates phone was bugged and he and my nephew went halves in an ounce of mj. Because my nephew scored and gave his mate his half he was charged with supply. The point is he was busted because of a phone tap on his mates phone, nothing to do with my nephew, he was collateral damage.

The lawyer managed to get the charge thrown out.

 

​I arranged for the lawyer .... to get to the point - the lawyer had been to the communications center in Brisbane and told us he couldn't believe how big the place was and how sophisticated the equipment is. He said people they were tracking could change phones and within 30 minutes the Police were on to the new phone. Anything said or background noises could be magnified and bought up to stereo quality. In a lot of cases background conversations could be listened to. He said he never wanted to use a phone again.

That was five years ago

 

Heres one link to the article, a simple google shows plenty more.

http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/1157990/access-to-private-net-phone-use-up-by-20-without-warrants/?cs=12