The Australian Government looked to the European experience as a model for its data retention scheme.
In July 2014, Attorney-General Brandis said that data retention ‘is very much the way in which western nations are going’.
It’s been a while since my last post as my blog has had a long overdue revamp.
The Dallas Buyers Club saga continues in the Federal Court, a Senate Committee is due to report on the website blocking bill on 9 June, while recent research from the EU says that shutting down pirate sites has no positive effect. There’s already a new agency, Australia Border Force, added to the list that can obtain access to our retained data and the government’s planning a National Facial Recognition Capability. That’s just some of the law + tech news from the last month … happy reading.
“The only thing the data-retention law is requiring is that types of metadata which are currently retained will be retained in the future for at least two years,” Turnbull told ABC radio on Wednesday.
Back in October last year, the Attorney-General also stated that the data retention laws will not “involve anything beyond what the telcos do at the moment.”
These false assurances from our senior politicians is infuriating spin.
Mandatory data retention is mass surveillance.
As the former Victorian Privacy Commissioner has said mass data retention:
“…is characteristic of a police state. It is premised on the assumption that all citizens should be monitored. Not only does this completely remove the presumption of innocence which all persons are afforded, it goes against one of the essential dimensions of human rights and privacy law: freedom from surveillance and arbitrary intrusions into a person’s life”
So you’ve got nothing to hide? Not fussed about rights and freedoms? Well, here’s some further practical consequences of data retention to consider.