"Australian metadata retention began yesterday." Topic

Yep, that which was an outrage when done covertly in the US has started openly in Australia with parliament's blessing. From now on, a wide range of government employees can obtain vast information about what we have done on the phone or internet for the last two years.

People who think they have nothing to hide so it doesn't matter should, by the same logic, have no problem with the Attorney General peering through the window while they get changed. In both cases they've got a lecherous grin on their face.

And that's not political – the control-freak AG of one party floated the idea and then the control-freak AG of the other implemented it.

I don't have a problem with it. There are checks and balances in existence which are draconian on those seeking to lawfully access the data. If it solves a vicious crime or thwarts a terrorist attack GOOD. It's been done for years anyway so what's new? And it doesn't relate to content either.

I fail to comprehend how many who plaster their life on hackable social media will be concerned about billing data held anyway by carriers being lawfully accessed subject to checks and balances.

If the AG wants to look through my window anytime he can; it will be his eyesight…….

Just another example of the "powers that be" manufacturing an atmosphere of fear to take more rights of the people away instead of addressing legitimate problems in a lawful way. Gun legislation had to come first so they could protect you.

The UN will demand access to your information next.

why not ask the east germans how spying by the state turned out for them?

With respect it is not spying, read the legislation and see how controlled it is. There must be a reason, there must be justification.

Media beat up, marginal parties looking for a moment of fame. The populace is marginally in favour with 16 % undecided. To me CCTV is more intrusive.

They're just collecting everyone's hot babe files…and the occasional terrorist/nutcase.

If you use the Internet you are public-adware alone is tracking you as I type.

If you use the Internet you are public-adware alone is tracking you as I type.

Never a truer statement.

Phone data is very different from Internet data.

I have a contract with the phone provider, who has subsidiary contracts with other providers, the performance of which is subject to control in my contract.

When I use the Internet I give my information to someone and say, "I don't really care who sees this, when, what they do with it, what countries (think legal jurisdictions) it transits, how it's handled, or really even if it ever arrives at the intended location. But try your hardest to get it there, OK?"

As far as telephone record, a whole lot of taped 'phone
calls ended up in JE Hoover's hands at the FBI a long
time ago.

Comm surveillance has been with us for a really really
long time….

If it solves a vicious crime or thwarts a terrorist attack GOOD.

Is it really about that, or about Sony enforcing copyright?

The moronic kids who commit the above crimes are invariably already on the police radar – they are too thick not to publicly declare that they are about to 'martyr' themselves, hence the extremely low rate of successful terrorist attacks in Australia.

So, how many abuses of these new powers justify giving police more power to watch people they are already capable of watching? The question is not if the abuses will happen, but when we will hear about them.

There must be a reason, there must be justification.

Suspicion of a crime punishable with a 2-year prison sentence. For example, graffiti. So, you'd be happy with your son being busted committing graffiti and as a result the local policeman knowing what porn sites you frequent?

The populace is marginally in favour with 16 % undecided. To me CCTV is more intrusive.

I read a poll which said the exact opposite of what you said. And popularity is beside the point – people made afraid will support all sorts of stupid measures.

To me CCTV is more intrusive.

Being contrary, that depends on whether it is private and needs to be stitched together, or centralised. The Jill Meagher case's rapid arrest was a result of police obtaining camera footage from several private store owners. A very useful tool, and not so open to abuse.

Also, if you go into public people see you. Your private discussions are a different thing.

Finally,

If the AG wants to look through my window anytime he can; it will be his eyesight……

When he turns up to question time with a guide dog, we'll know what happened.

Okay Muerto….

How do Sony enforce copyright using the new laws?
What abuses do you attribute to police?
Have you seen the checks and balances?
Your poll v my poll, okay.
Where do you get "suspicion" when it actually is a higher burden of proof, I.e. A belief on reasonable grounds?
Yep, CCTV helped with Jill Meagher, but it's intrusive. Can you be sure the reason we have a low level of attacks is not because of lawful powers with checks and balances regarding metadata.

If brandis turned up with a guide dog, he'll probably be holding a signed photo too……

Edit: apologies for perceived "short" answers, but I hate typing on IPad………

I was writing a big monologue, but I think this touches on all your points:

link

It misses police abuses of power, but we have enough royal commissions now to indicate that there are always a few bad eggs finding creative ways to abuse whatever powers are in front of them.

Yep, CCTV helped with Jill Meagher, but it's intrusive.

but for metadata,

If it solves a vicious crime or thwarts a terrorist attack GOOD.

Are you maybe being contrary?

korsun0, sir, I don't think we will convince each other, so I propose a gentleman's wager:

If by three years after their beginning, midnight of October 12, 2018, there has been no use of data retained under this bill to successfully prosecute a copyright infringement case, and there has been no reported scandal regarding abuse by any government employee, and no retained data has been illegally hacked into, I will purchase a miniature of your choice up to a value of A$20, paint it to the best of my abilities, and pay all costs associated with postage from vendor to me and then my painting desk to you. If there has been, you do the same.

Whoever wins also gets the joy of having been right on the internet, and if you win there is the extra sauce of us living under a better class of rulers than I believe we do. Whoever loses gets the joy of painting something different than their usual.

Possibly we need an impartial adjudicator of some sort to qualify "abuse", though hopefully chivalrous conduct or the roll of a D6 could resolve any dispute.

Do you propose any amendments? Do you accept?

Effectively, Australians now have no privacy online unless they resort to methods that can defeat the metadata laws

This pretty much sums up the way distorted bias of the entire article. From you:

Also, if you go into public people see you. Your private discussions are a different thing.

So you have no problem collecting Internet communications and metadata, since that is all public?

WRT your wager, I'll take it if you add allowing me to go back three years from the listed date and go through case records and identify legally convicted criminals where the authorities uncovered a large amount of cell phone and Internet use related to the case that would have accelerated the case they didn't have.

And I'll go one further. We'll take the number of cases I can find that fit my criteria (that demonstrate benefit of the additional surveillance) and subtract the number of abuse cases that fit your criteria (which don't actually require any harm to be done) and you can just buy me that many minis.

Will there be abuses? Of course. That's just a really poor standard for rejecting an idea for becoming part of the social contract. Can you name any law in the history of mankind that wasn't abused? The criterion should be what is the tangible benefit to society, what are the real harms of its action and potential harms of abuse, what are the costs of controlling those downsides, and how do people feel about that.

Popular belief is not only relevant, it is the only thing that is relevant.

The moronic kids who commit the above crimes are invariably already on the police radar

I would hardly call human traffickers – one example of people whose prosecution would be aided by such information – "moronic kids". Invariably? Obviously you have a lot of data to back that up.

Is it really about that, or about Sony enforcing copyright?

Well, Sony (and other corporations) don't really "go after" individuals. It's not really worth their while to do so. Seriously. It actually hurts their bottom line to go after small, individual infractions. So, do you believe that the big corporations are in it for the moral imperative rather than the bottom line?

Corporations go after large violators (when they can – There were several fake Harry Potter books published and widely sold in China back in their heyday. All the gold in Gringots' couldn't make that stop.) Large violators substantively affect the corporations' income which rips off customers and employees.

Thanks for the essay.

So you have no problem collecting Internet communications and metadata, since that is all public?

Really? I don't see the public in my home. Housing law provides for quiet enjoyment and privacy.

And I'll go one further. We'll take the number of cases I can find that fit my criteria (that demonstrate benefit of the additional surveillance) and subtract the number of abuse cases that fit your criteria (which don't actually require any harm to be done) and you can just buy me that many minis.

So, n bad outcomes, in laws not the topic at hand, are justified by n+1 unrelated positive outcomes.

No, I don't believe I'll be entering such an ill-spirited deal with a party where such faulty logic is at play. Not that I proposed a deal with you to go one step further on to start with.

As for the people smuggling, that's a lovely equivocation and straw man.

If korsun, who put his case reasonably and has a stake in and is well informed about the actual laws at hand, wishes, the original deal is on the table.

Well, Sony (and other corporations) don't really "go after" individuals.

Speculative invoicing.

So, n bad outcomes, in laws not the topic at hand, are justified by n+1 unrelated positive outcomes.

No, I don't believe I'll be entering such an ill-spirited deal with a party where such faulty logic is at play. Not that I proposed a deal with you to go one step further on to start with.

As opposed to your deal where you completely ignore any benefits and only focus on the costs. Much more balanced.

And if you bothered to read my whole post

The criterion should be what is the tangible benefit to society, what are the real harms of its action and potential harms of abuse, what are the costs of controlling those downsides, and how do people feel about that.

you would see the part where I spell out that it is not merely a numerical issue. It is about evaluating the benefits and harms, not ignoring any benefits and counting the harms.

I find it informative that you were perfectly happy with pure numerical analysis in your original proposal. And reiterated the offer.

As for the people smuggling, that's a lovely equivocation and straw man.

You made a gross generalization and still seem to think there is no legitimate use for the information. I offered a single counterexample. The only regrets I have about the human trafficking rings I have helped break up is that we couldn't have done it faster. Whatever you believe, human trafficking is real, and human traffickers use modern telecommunications technology to enslave people.

link

I don't see the public in my home. Housing law provides for quiet enjoyment and privacy.

That is a massive misunderstanding of what you are doing when you send data through the Internet. You are putting the data out in public with no guarantee of how it is handled, by whom, how it is kept. Do you really believe your house is the entirety of the Internet? Do you think housing law for your country applies in the countries that you voluntarily through which let your data be sent in an unprotected and unregulated way?

Speculative invoicing.

Speculative invoicing is a scam that doesn't need this data, and in fact, was perpetrated without it. Hence, the "speculative" part.

As I said to korsun, we aren't going to convince each other. That goes for you and I too, more so as I find your argumentative methods to be less than sincere. With him, I tried to find a novel and fun way to wind the discussion up. I see no fun here.

If you want to surrender this particular freedom in return for security, real or perceived, feel free. I do not.

Now, if you want the last word, be my guest. I won't be paying much attention.