Abbott's counter terrorism measures

[overhang]

Well, I'm sure I wouldn't rather be killed by a suicide bomber who just decided to make the supreme sacrifice for his god right beside me than have my phone/internet use scooped up along with that of everyone else. Much prefer to stay alive, thanks. And just because no fanatic has yet committed such an atrocity in Australia does not mean there is not such an event being planned right now.

Our intelligence agencies have foiled several such schemes.

That's why I said personally Julia, I'm sure there are many like you who are happy to have their privacy and liberties eroded to feel safe at night but their are others like me that won't.
So our agencies have managed to foil several planned attacks which would indicate that the agencies already have enough information in their hands to prevent such attacks.

 

[sydboy007]

Can you explain why that's not a pretty valid proposition? I don't think I'm particularly stupid or unrealistic but I would find it delusional to think the government is going to be even remotely interested in anything I do or what websites I visit etc.

The USA surveillance industry said they weren't interested in going through the mundane of people's personal lives. It was shown that's what they were rummaging through most the time.

I also see this as the thin edge the edge for a constantly increasing surveillance web. Considering how Muhamed Haneef was treated by members of the current Govt i have little faith the laws would be appropriately regulated against misuse.

I'm sure you have curtains like the rest of is, but if they're not there to hide doing something wrong why have them? I'd say like most of us you have them for privacy.

The more of our privacy that's eroded the more likely ate to lose out democracy. All the info collected would allow the govt to weedle out activist networks, members of opposition groups. I don't have enough faith in politicians to not be tempted to use the info for political gain. They could use metadata to determine people at a protest March or who met an activist's house, all without a warrant. That's close to see police state.

When the NSW police commissioner may have been intimately involved in funding corruption that's definitely not confidence inspiring!

 

[Julia]

Because every time the government further encroaches on our privacy the same tired old line is used.

Sniffer dogs at pubs, train stations, concerts -- "If you're doing nothing wrong it doesn't matter",

CCTV cameras being installed everywhere -- "If you're doing nothing wrong it doesn't matter"

Police being given access to people's Opal card history without a warrant -- "If you're doing nothing wrong it doesn't matter"

Having your ID scanned and recorded in a database when you go into a pub/bar/club -- "If you're doing nothing wrong it doesn't matter"

So where does it end?

Simply doesn't bother me, McLovin.

The USA surveillance industry said they weren't interested in going through the mundane of people's personal lives. It was shown that's what they were rummaging through most the time.

Right. I can just envisage a score of intelligence agents spending their expensive time reading my completely boring emails and posts on stock forums. If that's the best use they can make of their time, then that's what I'd be worried about, not any invasion of my privacy.

I'm sure you have curtains like the rest of is, but if they're not there to hide doing something wrong why have them? I'd say like most of us you have them for privacy.

Just shows you how wrong you can be when you make assumptions. I only ever draw the curtains during the winter purely to keep the warmth in the room.

 

[McLovin]

The USA surveillance industry said they weren't interested in going through the mundane of people's personal lives. It was shown that's what they were rummaging through most the time.

Surveillance in the US is out of control. The NSA has all but admitted it spies on members of the US Congress. That's the long slippery road that starts out with a bumbling AG explaining the need to be able to keep those baddy terrorists under surveillance.

 

[Craton]

You don't think a huge amount of data is already being stored about you? Your credit card statement provides a record of where you shop, the store loyalty card if you use one, stores details about everything you buy. You'll have noticed that the big supermarkets are into much more than food, grog and petrol. They're into insurance and can easily ascertain from where and how often you buy petrol how much more or less risk you represent from an insurer's pov, ie much less if you tootle round a small regional centre v thousands of kms on open roads.
According to an item on 7.30 last night, they're about to have their banking arm offer loans also.
Then there's everything you put up on the internet, what you waffle on about on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin et al.


Can you explain why that's not a pretty valid proposition? I don't think I'm particularly stupid or unrealistic but I would find it delusional to think the government is going to be even remotely interested in anything I do or what websites I visit etc.

Ah, and that's why I pay in cash as often as I can. I have refused to use loyalty cards for many years, many years. Call me dumb, call me paranoid, whatever and of course I know that there are huge databases where me details are kept.
For example, a couple of years ago as a service technician for a well know computer company I was advised that that company's email database had been compromised (hacked) and guess what? I started receiving huge amounts of SPAM via that stolen email account.

Being in the IT game I am acutely aware of data and its importance and of its sensitivity. I'm very distrustful of the hidden power (within the data) of FB and the like. As a citizen I'm also acutely aware of the erosion of my civil rights and liberties. This is just another erosion and I'm none too pleased.

FWIW. I ride a motorcycle and no, I'm not in any "gang" but am a member of several Long Distance riding forums and mailing lists. Recently on a Ride To Eat a service station attendant at Nullarbor roadhouse (yes Nullarbor Roadhouse, was there twice over the w/end) commented that we should of had a police escort. WT...? We didn't ride in a group like say, the Rebels but the perception was there. We ride bikes so we must by outlaws. Give me a break...

I'm a curious critter by nature and my online habits and phone calls will prove that. However, my researching bomb making and suicide bombers and like doesn't mean I'm threat either but will raise a flag for the "watchers". Thin edge of the wedge for sure...

 

[Craton]

Surveillance in the US is out of control. The NSA has all but admitted it spies on members of the US Congress. That's the long slippery road that starts out with a bumbling AG explaining the need to be able to keep those baddy terrorists under surveillance.

Yep.

The AG bumbling attempt at describing metadata, ha, what a joke. Totally agree, a very slippery slope that will have only one outcome if allowed to continue. Viva la revolution!

 

[Knobby22]

Is George Brandis an idiot or what? Just an embarrassment as he proves he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Finally the Libs have rolled out Malcolm Turnball to take over and clear the air.

(Of course if you only get you news sources from the Courier Mail then Brandis is a visionary.)

 

[Calliope]

We must be on the right track then.

Muslims have reacted with resentment and fury to plans by the government to vastly expand the capture of telecommunications data, lower standards of proof for terrorist offences committed overseas, and force travellers to prove they had travelled to designated areas in the Middle East for a legitimate purpose.

The plans to bolster terror legislation represent the biggest expansion of counter-terrorism legislation in more than a decade and are in response to a movement of Australian-born young men who have joined the jihadist cause in Syria and Iraq. There are believed to be about 150 Australians who have travelled overseas to take part in the foreign conflicts, and about 60 who are active fighters, including convicted terrorist Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar, who was pictured holding the severed heads of Syrian government soldiers. Arrest warrants have been issued for the two men.

While Islamic community leaders have publicly condemned Israel for its campaign in Gaza, they have also been criticised, including by law enforcement officers, for being less vocal on the bloody conflicts in Syria and Iraq and as Australian extremists such as Sharrouf continue to call on young Australian citizens to join the jihadi cause.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-local-jihadists/story-e6frg8yo-1227017312859

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, we are. I am really worried about it.

What are we doing about this though?

Secret departmental operations have estimated that as many as nine in 10 skilled migrant visas may be fraudulent, while an internal inquiry into Afghan visa applicants in 2012 assessed that more than 90 per cent of cases contained "fraud of some type" and raised "people smuggling, identity fraud, suspected child trafficking and national security implications".

Also, a 2010 report reveals that immigration investigators had uncovered a Somali people-smuggling cell in Melbourne linked to terrorist suspect Hussein Hashi Farah, who "is believed to have links to the al-Qaeda offshoot al-Shabab" and who fled Kenyan counterterrorism officials using an Australian passport in 2010.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...iles-reveal-20140806-3d8wj.html#ixzz39ku1Y7Uo

Seems we don't have enough immigration officials to even chase these up. We are becoming the pathetic country.

 

[sydboy007]

Right. I can just envisage a score of intelligence agents spending their expensive time reading my completely boring emails and posts on stock forums. If that's the best use they can make of their time, then that's what I'd be worried about, not any invasion of my privacy.

Possibly your lack of worry is due to you not understanding just how much information that bored or corrupt intelligence agent / police officer can be gleaning from you. I can see the possibility of a major breach leading to massive racketeering rings based on personal information a person would not like in the public domain. Think being held to ransom because you went to a sexual health clinic / watch pr0n / bought some marital aids or any of hundreds of other perfectly legal actions that some would like to remain private. The Government is proposing to have massive data repositories of linked data to be minded. Every week there's another story of millions of passwords compromised due to a successful hack. How many hacks go undetected / reported?

Maybe it's not used inappropriately at the beginning, but we only have to look back to the reds under the beds mania in the USA and Australia, how Hoover used his intelligence info against opponents. The potential to leak personal information to cruel an opponents chances of being elected could be just too tempting for a Government or someone with the access who's got a strong ideological bias.

I can see software being used to start profiling people based on where they go, who they are around, what web sites they go to. Broad assumptions, as much based on ideology as reality, will make their way into the system and at some point in the future it will be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

It is already this way in the USA for Welfare recipients. From the Divide by Matt taibbi

The subject was the city's P100 program, under which anyone who applied for welfare could have his or her home searched preemptively by the state. Ostensibly, authorities were looking for evidence that the applicant had a secret job or a boyfriend who could pay bills, or was just generally lying about something in order to cheat the taxpayer out of that miserable few hundred bucks a month.

One Vietnamese woman, a refugee and a rape victim who had only recently come to America, applied for welfare in San Diego. An inspector came to her door, barged in, and began rifling through her belongings. At one point, he reached into her underwear drawer and began sifting around. Sneering, he used the tip of the pencil eraser to pull out a pair of sexy panties and looked at her accusingly. If she didn't have a boyfriend, what did she need these for?

That image, of a welfare inspector sneeringly holding up panties with a pencil end, expresses all sorts of things at once. The main thing is contempt. The implication is that someone broke enough to ask the taxpayer for a handout shouldn't have sex, much less sexy panties.

The other thing here is an idea that being that poor means you should naturally give up any ideas you might have about privacy or dignity. The welfare applicant is less of a person for being financially dependent (and a generally unwelcome immigrant from a poor country to boot), so she naturally has fewer rights.

Just shows you how wrong you can be when you make assumptions. I only ever draw the curtains during the winter purely to keep the warmth in the room.

I'm a shift worker and need a dark room to sleep during days. Other's probably like curtains when they're getting dressed in their bedrooms. I certainly have my blinds down when doing this, though note the odd neighbour doesn't seem to care / realise they're in plain view when doing the same. I live in a free country so we have the rights to keep the curtains open or closed.

If the Government was proposing to store the data itself with no external access, limiting the threat of a breach, and access to this data was via a warrant, then I'd have a bit more confidence the system is less likely to be abused. I'd also like to see minimum jail terms for wilful inappropriate access to the data, along with jail time to anyone who detects inappropriate use and doesn't report it or helps to cover it up. All access should be logged against some file ref so all access can be linked back to a reason as to why the information was accessed and audits done to confirm the appropriateness of this access. There should be mandatory reporting of any breaches to the public. Possibly the privacy commissioner should act as auditor.

I doubt any of the above will happen. The public will have no idea as to just how the information is being used / abused.

 

[SirRumpole]

Further to what syd was saying, metadata without context is dangerous.

example, if one was engaged in a forum discussion on jihadists, one may want to access some of their crazy websites to use as evidence of their insanity in the discussion. If I accessed 5 jihadist web sites for the purpose of gaining evidence to use against them, some spook may get the idea that I was actually interested in undertaking jihad and could target me, my family or contacts based on that information.

That's just one example of how a lack of context could lead to not only targetting people with no interest in terrorism, but creates red herrings that wastes agency's time and money to investigate for no return.

 

[Craton]

Possibly your lack of worry is due to you not understanding just how much information that bored or corrupt intelligence agent / police officer can be gleaning from you. I can see the possibility of a major breach leading to massive racketeering rings based on personal information a person would not like in the public domain. Think being held to ransom because you went to a sexual health clinic / watch pr0n / bought some marital aids or any of hundreds of other perfectly legal actions that some would like to remain private. The Government is proposing to have massive data repositories of linked data to be minded. Every week there's another story of millions of passwords compromised due to a successful hack. How many hacks go undetected / reported?

Maybe it's not used inappropriately at the beginning, but we only have to look back to the reds under the beds mania in the USA and Australia, how Hoover used his intelligence info against opponents. The potential to leak personal information to cruel an opponents chances of being elected could be just too tempting for a Government or someone with the access who's got a strong ideological bias.

I can see software being used to start profiling people based on where they go, who they are around, what web sites they go to. Broad assumptions, as much based on ideology as reality, will make their way into the system and at some point in the future it will be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

It is already this way in the USA for Welfare recipients. From the Divide by Matt taibbi

The subject was the city's P100 program, under which anyone who applied for welfare could have his or her home searched preemptively by the state. Ostensibly, authorities were looking for evidence that the applicant had a secret job or a boyfriend who could pay bills, or was just generally lying about something in order to cheat the taxpayer out of that miserable few hundred bucks a month.

One Vietnamese woman, a refugee and a rape victim who had only recently come to America, applied for welfare in San Diego. An inspector came to her door, barged in, and began rifling through her belongings. At one point, he reached into her underwear drawer and began sifting around. Sneering, he used the tip of the pencil eraser to pull out a pair of sexy panties and looked at her accusingly. If she didn't have a boyfriend, what did she need these for?

That image, of a welfare inspector sneeringly holding up panties with a pencil end, expresses all sorts of things at once. The main thing is contempt. The implication is that someone broke enough to ask the taxpayer for a handout shouldn't have sex, much less sexy panties.

The other thing here is an idea that being that poor means you should naturally give up any ideas you might have about privacy or dignity. The welfare applicant is less of a person for being financially dependent (and a generally unwelcome immigrant from a poor country to boot), so she naturally has fewer rights.



I'm a shift worker and need a dark room to sleep during days. Other's probably like curtains when they're getting dressed in their bedrooms. I certainly have my blinds down when doing this, though note the odd neighbour doesn't seem to care / realise they're in plain view when doing the same. I live in a free country so we have the rights to keep the curtains open or closed.

If the Government was proposing to store the data itself with no external access, limiting the threat of a breach, and access to this data was via a warrant, then I'd have a bit more confidence the system is less likely to be abused. I'd also like to see minimum jail terms for wilful inappropriate access to the data, along with jail time to anyone who detects inappropriate use and doesn't report it or helps to cover it up. All access should be logged against some file ref so all access can be linked back to a reason as to why the information was accessed and audits done to confirm the appropriateness of this access. There should be mandatory reporting of any breaches to the public. Possibly the privacy commissioner should act as auditor.

I doubt any of the above will happen. The public will have no idea as to just how the information is being used / abused.

Exactly. To allow such broad sweeping Big Brother tactics is undemocratic and brandishes everyone guilty until proven innocent. All adding to further erosion of our rights.

I'd add that, and to use an Americanism, LEO's already have been given enough power thanks to 9/11 and that there already is enough data stored for LEO's to do their work with. Evidenced in the fact of the Australians illegally fighting in jihads and the two with arrest warrants.

Of greater concern is the many and varied corruption outcomes one can envisage and the avalanche of hacking attempts that the honey pot of data will attract.

Sure, I've got nothing to hide but I also don't want everything about me put on display so that I'm an open book for all and sundry to use and abuse.

 

[Craton]

Further to what syd was saying, metadata without context is dangerous.

example, if one was engaged in a forum discussion on jihadists, one may want to access some of their crazy websites to use as evidence of their insanity in the discussion. If I accessed 5 jihadist web sites for the purpose of gaining evidence to use against them, some spook may get the idea that I was actually interested in undertaking jihad and could target me, my family or contacts based on that information.

That's just one example of how a lack of context could lead to not only targetting people with no interest in terrorism, but creates red herrings that wastes agency's time and money to investigate for no return.

Again, exactly right. I said that in an earlier post. I'm curious, I like to enlighten my ignorance so my online researching of bomb making, suicide bombers and the like will raise a big red flag to the "watchers" and next thing I'm being raided under suspicion.

Even more likely because I've emailed my opposition to further erosion of my rights to my local MP, as I done regarding my concerns over this proposal. In fact, I'd encourage one and all to do the same.

 

[Julia]

Is George Brandis an idiot or what? Just an embarrassment as he proves he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Finally the Libs have rolled out Malcolm Turnball to take over and clear the air.

Here is what Mr Turnbull said on "AM" this morning.

But I want to just clear a few things up - the security services, the police, ASIO and so forth, are not asking the Government to require telcos to record or retain information that they are not currently recording.

There has been some concern expressed that the Government was proposing that telcos should retain for two years a record of the websites that you visit when you're online, whether that's expressed in the form of their domain names or their IP addresses, in other words, that there would be a requirement to keep a two-year record of your web browsing or web surfing history.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So that's not the case?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is not the case. That is not the case.

What they are seeking is that the traditional telephone records that are currently kept, and by some ISPs and telcos for more than two years, that is the caller, the called party, you know, I called you, time of call, duration of call - those records be, they want them to be kept for two years.

And they also want the IP address, which is the number that is assigned to your phone or your computer when you go online by your ISP, so that you can be connected on the internet. And, that is of course connected, that the ISP knows that IP address is connected to your account. That's recorded in their records. They want that information to be kept for two years.

Now, that is... some ISPs keep that record for differing periods.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Okay.

So I don't see what all the fuss is about. Google already record every website you visit. If you have succumbed to any store loyalty cards they record a lot more about you than seems to be being proposed here. Your bank's software watches your credit card purchases so closely that it lets you know as soon as something outside your normal purchasing pattern occurs.

And syd, don't be so patronising. Some of you are suggesting you'd be under suspicion because you visited a jihadist website. That seems a bit silly to me. Plenty of people will, under the current circumstances, have a look at this sort of thing. I just don't believe ASIO are going to come and take you away from your nice, middle class retirement existence, Rumpole, for so doing. If you insist on feeling threatened by this move by the government, why are you not similarly up in arms about the way Google records your every move?

 

[SirRumpole]

why are you not similarly up in arms about the way Google records your every move?

I don't like Google doing that either, but they don't have the power to throw me in gaol on false pretences, and if they misuse my data I can sue them.

Governments tend to make themselves immune from legal redress that can be used against corporations.

 

[Ves]

So I don't see what all the fuss is about. Google already record every website you visit.

If you insist on feeling threatened by this move by the government, why are you not similarly up in arms about the way Google records your every move?

Firstly, as an initial comment I don't think that it is 100% accurate that Goggle tracks 100% of your internet activities (or as you put it "your every move"). Would like you to clarify this if you know something that I don't.

And secondly, I think this is fundamentally different, because there is an ability for the individual to "opt out."

The first way of doing this that you instruct Google to limit the information they track (or as you said re: loyalty cards you could avoid as much of Google's reach as possible by avoiding their products and affiliations. Obviously not ideal as they have a big reach, but it's a start. Secondly, if you know what you are doing, you have the ability to remain anonymous to companies like Google by using methods that are off the beaten path and not usually discussed on public forums / articles.

However, when it comes to governments there is no ability to opt out. It is law. Yes, a small proportion of individuals and companies will opt out using illegal terms (read: the people who they most want to track) whilst the rest of us have to "opt in."

That's why people are probably pissed off. That and the fact that the more information is stored on an ever-increasing amount of databases about you, is open to security threats or abuse. Layers upon layers of bureaucracy for little gain.

 

[overhang]

Here is what Mr Turnbull said on "AM" this morning.



So I don't see what all the fuss is about. Google already record every website you visit. If you have succumbed to any store loyalty cards they record a lot more about you than seems to be being proposed here. Your bank's software watches your credit card purchases so closely that it lets you know as soon as something outside your normal purchasing pattern occurs.

And syd, don't be so patronising. Some of you are suggesting you'd be under suspicion because you visited a jihadist website. That seems a bit silly to me. Plenty of people will, under the current circumstances, have a look at this sort of thing. I just don't believe ASIO are going to come and take you away from your nice, middle class retirement existence, Rumpole, for so doing. If you insist on feeling threatened by this move by the government, why are you not similarly up in arms about the way Google records your every move?

You're comparing the unavoidable mandatory retention of data by the Government to a company that also tracks your data that a consumer has the choice not to use, its apples and oranges.

As far as what all the fuss is about, we've had the government use several different definitions to what meta data means in the space of a week so I'm a little hesitant to believe Turnbulls watered down version this morning.

 

[sydboy007]

Here is what Mr Turnbull said on "AM" this morning.



So I don't see what all the fuss is about. Google already record every website you visit. If you have succumbed to any store loyalty cards they record a lot more about you than seems to be being proposed here. Your bank's software watches your credit card purchases so closely that it lets you know as soon as something outside your normal purchasing pattern occurs.

And syd, don't be so patronising. Some of you are suggesting you'd be under suspicion because you visited a jihadist website. That seems a bit silly to me. Plenty of people will, under the current circumstances, have a look at this sort of thing. I just don't believe ASIO are going to come and take you away from your nice, middle class retirement existence, Rumpole, for so doing. If you insist on feeling threatened by this move by the government, why are you not similarly up in arms about the way Google records your every move?

Because what Turnbull is saying is not factually correct.

* Internet providers don't track and RECORD long term every single IP connection you make. What they do is track each session and the amount of data that flows through it. Once that session goes down, the info is of no more value to the ISP. All they store is the amount of data you have received and sent for billing purposes. I'd say in storage terms the Govt is looking at storing a minimum 100 times the amount of data for say Ma and Pa doing very minimal basic email and browsing. Once you get into the amount of storage required for an active teenagers mobile phone, it will likely turn into thousands of times the amount of data stored. Go back to my post on the 7th at 12:19 AM and see how much data the Govt is asking to be stored as opposed to what is currently stored which is my internet username and IP for the time I was logged on plus the amount of data I used. That amount of info was from ~40 mins of being online.

* Internet providers do keep long term logs of username mapped to an IP address. A few times a year my company gets a court order for this kind of information. All that information can be used is to confirm who was using the IP at a particular point in time ie it can confirm who sent an email or who accessed a web site. A court order can also compel us to mirror a particular users internet traffic to the police or security agency - the cost of this is borne by the company.

Are you 100% sure that the information collected:

* Will never be hacked
* Will never be accessed for purposes other than a criminal / terrorist investigation?

If not, then what safe guards is the Government proposing to enact to get as close to 100% security for this massive personal pile of data?

 

[Knobby22]

I hear the whole interview and it was clarified

This is what Turnbull said.

As for what the security agencies want, he says they are seeking the traditional telephone records that are currently kept, in some cases, for more than two years.

"That is the caller, the call party, I called you, time of call, duration of call, those records, they want them to be kept for two years," he said.

He says the agencies also want to keep the number assigned to your phone or your computer when you go online, which is known as an IP address, for two years.

"Some ISPs (internet service providers) keep a record for differing periods, but that is information that is already being kept, and ... it's an essential part of an ISP's business."

So there is no requirement to see who you visit.

 

[Calliope]

All those Abbott haters who were in fear and trembling that the government would pry into the sordid details of their private lives can rest easy. The mountain that they have been so busily erecting has crumbled into a molehill.

“This is not some great mass surveillance exercise or mass invasion of privacy of every citizen in Australia,” Mr Irvine said at Parliament House, in a joint press conference with AFP Deputy Commissioner, Andrew Colvin.

“It is very, very carefully targeted against those people who give us good reason to suspect that they may be engaged in activities which are a threat to national security and the lives of Australians.

“We seek access to metadata on very specific cases where there is a very specific security intelligence purpose to do so.”

Mr Irvine said the “what, when, where and how” of telecommunications were “absolutely crucial” in protecting Australians in the areas of terrorism and espionage.

“All that we’re actually changing or seeking to change is that whereas that data was held by the companies for their own purposes on a commercial basis … we want that data now to be held in such a way that we can continue to have access to it in an environment where that access has begun to diminish a little bit,” he said

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-retention-laws/story-fn59niix-1227017608824