The Coalition government’s surprise move to introduce the draft
mandatory data retention laws to parliament has elicited a cautious
response from the telecommunications industry, with the telcos urging
further clarity on the technical and financial details underpinning the
proposed regime.
The proposed laws will require telcos and
internet service providers to keep, according to the Coalition, a
limited set of metadata for two years.
Under the laws, a person's
web browsing history would not be captured, nor would service providers
be allowed to keep detailed location records tracking a person's
movements.
“Service providers will not be required to retain the
content or substance of any communication, including subject lines of
emails or posts on social media sites,” Communications minister Malcolm
Turnbull said on Thursday.
“The Act will expressly exclude a person’s web-browsing history, and
providers will not be required to keep detailed location records that
could allow a person’s movements to be tracked, akin to a surveillance
device.”
The government has also said that the bill does not
provide any additional powers to law enforcement or intelligence
agencies and does not give them any capacity to access metadata beyond
what they already have.
The government’s commitment to make a
"substantial contribution" to cover company costs, along with the
reduction in the range of agencies which can access metadata have so far
been the two components the telcos are most pleased about.
Communications
Alliance chief executive John Stanton said the government is at least
taking the concerns of the industry seriously.
“We welcome
the move to restrict the number of agencies that can access metadata and
the indication from government that it is willing to make a substantial
contribution to the cost imposts on service providers that may flow
from the creation of the data retention regime,” Mr Stanton said.
Scope creep a real worry
However,
there’s evidently plenty of ground that still needs to be covered, with
many issues still in need of refinement before any regime can be put in
place.
“These might include whether it is necessary or
appropriate for all data to be stored for as long as two years, and how
to adequately deal with the complexity of over-the-top services such as
messaging platforms which generate many forms of metadata that originate
and terminate on many different applications,” Mr Stanton said.
He also warned that there was a legitimate fear of ‘scope creep’ over time that merits serious consideration.
It’s a sentiment shared by the most vocal critic of the Coalition’s proposed laws- iiNet.
The
internet service provider’s chief regulatory officer Steve Daly warned
that the ‘devil is certainly in the detail’ with an urgent need for
clear definition of terms, including what type of personal
information may be captured by this proposed legislation.
“Although
we are encouraged by a move away from some more Orwellian aspects of
the government’s data surveillance proposal, we maintain there is no
urgency for this bill to be passed,” Mr Dalby said.
However,
there’s evidently plenty of ground that still needs to be covered, with
many issues still in need of refinement before any regime can be put in
place.
“These might include whether it is necessary or
appropriate for all data to be stored for as long as two years, and how
to adequately deal with the complexity of over-the-top services such as
messaging platforms which generate many forms of metadata that originate
and terminate on many different applications,” Mr Stanton said.
He also warned that there was a legitimate fear of ‘scope creep’ over time that merits serious consideration.
What the big 3 have to say
The big three carriers – Telstra, Optus and Vodafone- are also toeing the line carefully for the time being.
Telstra said that in a sector with rapid technological change, it makes sense to look at clarifying the obligations on industry.
“In
introducing the legislation today we welcome the process outlined by
the Government to resolve outstanding issues. It continues the
commitment they have shown in industry consultation in recent weeks to
meet national security objectives, while minimising the impact on
industry and consumers,” a Telstra spokesperson said.
Optus and
Vodafone have been somewhat less effusive with their praise with both
pushing for further resolution off concerns around the scope of data
retention.
According to
The Australian Financial Review,
Vodafone Australia’s director of strategy and corporate affairs Dan
Lloyd has warned that the implication of the regime on the Internet of
Things (IoT) need to be taken into account
Speaking
at the Ovum 2020 Telecoms Summit, Mr Lloyd warned that details from
automated systems, known as machine-to-machine, could potentially be
captured under the regime, the AFR reports.
'Surveillance tax' fears sprout
While
the Coalition has taken some of the telco industry’s concerns on board,
communications minister Malcolm Turnbull’s words have done little to
placate those incensed by the implications of the law on civil
liberties.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam told reporters in Canberra
that the proposed data retention regime will not only mean ‘mild,
real-time, passive surveillance’ but also inevitably hurt consumers
financially.
"It's imposing a cost on people that they don't want to pay," Mr Ludlam said.
Senator
Ludlam believes the legislation goes too far, even though he
acknowledges intelligence agencies are seeking greater surveillance
powers for anti-terrorism and law enforcement operations.
"At some point you have to draw a line. We are drawing the line at mandatory data retention."
With
a draft data set and the bill set to be referred to the parliamentary
joint committee on intelligence and security for review before it’s
passed, the opposition has also weighed into the debate, with opposition
communications spokesman Jason Clare saying that the complexity of the
proposed regime warranted stringent scrutiny.
"We need to look at
this over a couple of months, not a couple of weeks, and the
parliamentary committee will have myself on it as well as Mark Dreyfus,"
Mr Clare said.
Mr Clare said that the data retention issue
was broader than national security, with privacy implications and
the potential to increase the cost of internet bills.
He added
that it was disappointing that the Coalition decided against consulting
the opposition and the Australian people before introducing the bill.
heraldsun.com.au 30 Oct 2014
Unbeknown to the general populous, but well known within the legal community, another UNLAWFUL law being passed through.
Part of the Police State agenda to monitor then later control the movements of the masses.
Australia the modern day Alcatraz.
Ellen Kwek with baby Zoe at home in Carlton North. Photo: Paul Jeffers