Prime Minister Tony Abbott has sought to allay concerns about the impact of new security laws on privacy.
The
Government announced yesterday that it would draft legislation to
compel telephone and internet companies to keep metadata - information
on customers' calls and internet use - for security agencies to access.
On Wednesday, Mr Abbott said authorities would be able to see what internet sites people were viewing.
"It is not what you're doing on the internet, it's the sites you're visiting," he told Channel Nine.
"It's not the content, it's just where you have been, so to speak."
But later Mr Abbott said the metadata to be collected would not include people's browsing history.
"We are not seeking content, we are seeking metadata," he said.
He
used a metaphor to explain that "metadata is the material on the front
of the envelope, and the contents of the letter will remain private".
- For web browsing, "content" is anything user generated, eg: typing in a URL, clicking through to links or a Google search.
- "Metadata"
is information the system automatically puts in around the
user-generated content, eg: IP addresses, number of visits to a site and
length of time on a page.
- An IP address viewed in the metadata
would show a person visited a certain website, but would not show what
specific pages they visited there, if they wrote anything there or
viewed videos.
- Currently, authorities can request access to metadata from telcos/ISPs, but they require a warrant for access to "content".
Read the full explanation
"All we want is for the telecommunications companies to
continue to keep the person sending the information, the person to whom
the information is being sent, the time it was sent and the place it
was sent from," he added.
The Prime Minister's office later
clarified that web-browsing history is considered content, not metadata,
and authorities need a warrant to access it.
Metadata would also
include the basic information about a phone call, such as the caller's
location and the number they call. It does not include the content of
the telephone conversation.
Federal Cabinet has given
"in-principle" approval for new laws to require companies to keep the
information for a certain amount of time, but the detail is unlikely to
be known until the legislation is finalised later this year.
Many companies currently keep metadata, but it is understood the federal laws will mandate the information be retained longer.
But Attorney-General George Brandis, who is working on the draft laws, says he wants to make sure content is not included.
"We want to maintain the sharp distinction between metadata and content," he told Sky TV.
"Sometimes
that distinction is blurred and that's why we are developing protocols
to try and ensure the integrity of that distinction is maintained."
Brandis pressed to explain difference between metadata and content
The Attorney-General was pressed to explain that distinction, especially in terms of internet use.
"What
the security agencies want to be retained is the electronic address of
the website that the web user is visiting - it tells you the address of
the website," he said.
"When you visit a website people browse
from one thing to the next and that browsing history won't be retained
and there won't be any capacity to access that."
He added that,
while this was "at its heart a counter-terrorism measure", the move
would also boost the general crime-fighting ability of authorities.
"The fact is that access to metadata is an extremely useful criminal investigative tool," he said.
"When
Jill Meagher was murdered in Victoria a little while ago it was access
to metadata that assisted Victorian police in tracking down her killer -
with a warrant.
"I've discussed this matter with my counterpart
in the United Kingdom who tells me this is also used to track down
paedophile rings."
Former federal police officer turned academic
Nigel Phair says retaining metadata is a powerful tool on its own,
without access to the "content".
"In many instances for law enforcement and national
security organisations that metadata is more important and more valuable
than the content itself," he said.
But Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson says the proposed changes are a threat to privacy.
"I
dismiss the idea that metadata is just an irrelevant part of the
discussion so long as it doesn't relate to content," he said.
Liberal frontbencher Stuart Robert says he has no problem with people's web-browsing history being stored.
"Not at all, keeping in mind Google already stores your browsing history as it is," he said.
Government needs to clarify definition of metadata: iiNet
Telcos
have resisted the proposed security law changes, with Australia's
second-biggest broadband provider, iiNet, saying a data retention system
would cost it alone around $100 million.
The company's chief
regulatory officer, Steve Dalby, told ABC's PM program last month that
what is missing from the debate is the Government's definition of
metadata.
"[What's missing is] some specifics about what is going to be retained," he said.
"When
we talk about data retention, it can be everything from a very small
amount to a mind-boggling amount of data that is generated when people
use telecommunications services - whether that's telephony, which is on
the low side, or it's the internet, which generates massive amounts of
metadata."
Mr Dalby says iiNet received "confusing information" from the Government.
"We
have a briefing paper from the Attorney-General's Department that goes
back a few years that is very broad, and talks about a great range of
metadata that should be collected and stored for up to two years," he
said
"On the other hand, we've got comments from the
Attorney-General himself that talk about telephone companies collecting
routine metadata for the telephone billing purposes.
"We've got
something in the middle of that which talks about collecting all the
internet metadata, but somehow having the content stripped out of that.
Metadata contains content.
"You know, we are confused. We need some clarity."
Mr Dalby says telcos have received feedback that the Government will not cover the cost of data retention.
"What
the Government plans to do is to have the ISPs foot the bill for the
collection, the storage, the safekeeping of that data and then when a
law enforcement officer requires a search for some specific item then
they will pay, I think, something like $25 a pop," he said.
Laws to crack down on home-grown terrorism
Other laws to crack down on home-grown terrorism will come before Parliament when it resumes later this month.
The
Terrorism Foreign Fighter Bill will make it an offence to travel to
certain locations the Government deems to be of "terrorist activity"
unless the person can prove it was for humanitarian or family reasons.
The
Government will also seek to broaden the laws to cover the prohibition
of 'terrorism', rather than an individual act of terrorism, and make it
an offence to promote or encourage terrorism.
The criteria for authorities to be granted control orders and search warrants will also be loosened.
Australia's spies are welcoming the Government's push to introduce tough new laws to tackle home-grown terrorists,
but civil liberty groups say the likelihood of attacks is being exaggerated.
Barrister
and spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Greg Barns, says the
most concerning thing about the new bill is the attempt to lower the
standard of proof for certain offences committed overseas.
"It's a
gross undermining of a fundamental right that everyone has in the
criminal justice system," he told ABC's The World Today program.
"And
particularly so when one considers that the penalties, when found
guilty of terrorism offences, effectively are from five years up to
life.
"What you're going to find here, if you lower the standard of proof, you will get innocent people who will go to jail."
abc.net.au 7 Aug 2014
Another lie / false information / propaganda told by Abbott.
Internet browsing history IS part of 'metadata' and it WILL be stored.
It's all part of the police state policy of the new age prison called Australia, where people are the 'real' enemy, where 'terrorism' is the excuse.
It's now official that 'mass surveillance' has been implemented.