[LINK] More on the data capture directive

[Jan Whitaker]

Privacy betrayal has blown Labor's chances




David Braue, ZDNet.com.au on June 15th, 2010 (2 days ago)

Kevin Rudd must really hate the food service at 
Parliament House, to be so determined to get out 
of there ASAP. Or, perhaps, he's had an intensive 
maths tutoring session and is eager to leave 
after finally realising how many zeroes there 
actually are in a billion. How else to explain a 
<http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm>digital 
snooping policy that violates every principle of 
personal freedom, every concept of fair dealings, 
every anti-interception legislation ever created, 
and every rule of what's technically possible?

Last week, I 
<http://www.zdnet.com.au/labor-needs-to-get-its-story-straight-339303667.htm>wondered 
whether Stephen Conroy's rapid conversion into a 
caricature of a minister reflected systemic 
problems within Labor. You wouldn't think Stephen 
Conroy would actually be trying to come up with a 
policy that is worse than both the internet 
filter and Google's own infractions, which Conroy 
recently labelled as "the 
<http://www.zdnet.com.au/conroy-google-wi-fi-spy-was-deliberate-339303408.htm>largest 
privacy breach in the history [sic] across 
Western democracies". But he has: Conroy's 
once-haughty assumption of the moral, egalitarian 
high ground has descended into a 
<http://www.zdnet.com.au/conroy-s-google-attacks-unhelpful-iia-339303512.htm>poo-flinging 
match with Google; ill-informed but stubborn 
defence of a ridiculous filter policy; and, now, 
an over-intrusive log of your online activities 
that would have made Joseph McCarthy blush.

Now, I recognise that the credit for our 
soon-to-be-world's-worst-practice policy has been 
taken by the Attorney-General's (AG) Department, 
so Conroy may not be able to claim full credit. 
But the proposal is squarely 
telecommunications-related, so there's no way it 
could be floated, considered or executed without 
Conroy's direct involvement and authority.

Already on the back foot, the AG came out 
yesterday saying that the data retention scheme 
won't include users' web histories but is 
"<http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-denies-it-wants-web-history-records-339303834.htm>purely 
about being able to identify and verify 
identities online" in the vein of the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive>European 
Directive on Data Retention. Yet that directive 
(<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF>read 
it here (PDF)) actually seems to be directly 
designed to log everything you do on a 
telecommunications service. Sure, Article 1.2 
specifies that the directive "shall apply to 
traffic and location data on both legal entities 
and natural persons and to the related data 
necessary to identify the subscriber or 
registered user. It shall not apply to the 
content of electronic communications, including 
information consulted using an electronic 
communications network". But Article 5.1 
specifies that internet service providers (ISPs) 
must retain "data necessary to trace and identify 
the source of a communication concerning internet 
access, internet email and internet telephony".

There's a bit of ambiguity in just how much 
information would be captured: Article 5.1.d.2 in 
the directive refers to the need for data 
necessary to identify the "type of communication" 
and, in the case of "internet email and internet 
telephony", requires ISPs to record "the internet 
service used". Granted, this could refer to HTTP 
or FTP or TCP as much as it could refer to a 
specific URL ­ which could also be defined as an 
"internet service". And if "internet service" 
doesn't mean website visits, then what does it 
mean? An argument that "Bob was using the 
internet at XXXXX on XXXXX and therefore he's 
guilty of downloading bomb-making material" isn't 
going to fly in any court that I could imagine.

Government security-related tech policy still 
seems to be predicated on the idea that the 
world's terrorists and paedophiles are working 
with a nine-year-old's understanding of the 
internet and zero ability to take even basic 
precautions to cover their tracks ... why not 
just make life easier for everybody and order the 
implantation of RFID tags in the nape of every newborn baby's neck?

Clause 5.1.b.2.ii of the directive also requires 
ISPs to record the full name and address of 
anybody you email or call. Yes, seriously. So 
while the government may not want to read your 
emails or the content of your websites, it 
definitely wants to know which sites you visit, 
the address of everybody you communicate with, 
and where you were when you make a phone call or 
send an email. For a government that can't even 
get carriers to implement a viable system for 
locating callers to 000 services, that's a pretty big ask.

Just because the EU has done something, does that 
automatically make it good for Australians? In 
fact, is there anything about this policy that is 
good for Australians? Putting aside the egregious 
concerns about privacy ­ which the government has 
gone to great lengths to protect in the past 
decade through a stricter Privacy Act, stronger 
Do Not Call registry and the like ­ it seems hard 
to believe this kind of monitoring would actually help anything.

Government security-related tech policy still 
seems to be predicated on the idea that the 
world's terrorists and paedophiles are working 
with a nine-year-old's understanding of the 
internet and zero ability to take even basic 
precautions to cover their tracks. Even if a 
flurry of website hits indicated some anonymous 
user somewhere was accessing lots of information 
about bomb-making, what would you bet that those 
hits would usually trace back to some anonymous internet kiosk somewhere?

Labor could always address this loophole by 
mandating 24/7 video recording of every computer 
user through the built-in webcam, ATM-style, to 
be stored for analysis and recording ­ you know, 
just in case. Hell, why not just make life easier 
for everybody and order the implantation of RFID 
tags in the nape of every newborn baby's neck, 
then install readers at the door of every 
building in the country so we can track every Australians' every step, 24/7?

"Orwellian" doesn't even begin to describe the 
internet future Labor seems bent on delivering. 
This kind of data gathering is not only absurdly 
intrusive ­ actually, I prefer Exetel chief John 
Linton's choice of words 
("<http://www.zdnet.com.au/data-retention-idea-totally-insane-linton-339303829.htm>totally 
insane") ­ but time and again it has been shown 
that this sort of thing just doesn't work. 
September 11 was a harsh reminder that even 
well-funded intelligence-gathering organisations 
struggle to keep on top of what's going on at the 
time, much less draw the connections to pick out 
trends from petabytes of historical internet usage data.

In fact, the only real use for this kind of 
infrastructure would be to provide a 
retrospective method for identifying people who 
have visited, or attempted to visit, sites 
blocked by whatever internet filter is eventually 
implemented. Some poor group of public servants 
would be tasked with visiting every link ever 
visited by every Australian, evaluating the 
content and tossing potentially RC-classified 
materials over the wall for evaluation and 
addition to the list. Then, of course, there'd be 
the issue of a stern warning notice, fine or 
court summons to the offending web surfer.

One could also imagine the information used by 
the recording and film industries to substantiate 
their nebulous copyright-infringement claims. But 
the government would never, ever kowtow to the 
interests of a specific constituency like that ... right?

Such uses would make Labor's latest proposal the 
internet equivalent of speed cameras ­ 
ubiquitous, sneaky, universally-hated, and of 
questionable efficacy when used more to generate 
millions in revenues for councils rather than 
deterring bad driving. It could also, the way 
things are going, be the final tipping point for 
a Labor government that has recently seemed 
deadset on promoting as many outrageously, 
horribly, embarrassingly awful policies as possible.

Labor's latest proposal [is] the internet 
equivalent of speed cameras ­ ubiquitous, sneaky, 
universally-hated, and of questionable efficacy 
.... It could also be the final tipping point for 
a Labor government that has recently seemed 
deadset on promoting as many outrageously, 
horribly, embarrassingly awful policies as possible.

This really is nothing new in politics, but you'd 
hope the really controversial legislation comes 
out after the election. Labor is in the run-up to 
the election, giving the Australian public every 
reason to send them packing. The party's 
political 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku>seppuku 
could not only lose the election, but see the 
once-buoyant Kevin Rudd frogmarched out of 
Parliament House in one of the most dramatic pantsings in political history.

It's not clear whether Julia Gillard would 
maintain the same policies or would dispense with 
this nonsense after years spent sitting quietly, 
smiling, behind Rudd while knowing full well that 
he's currently digging his own political grave. 
But it doesn't really matter: I don't know about 
you, but while I was prepared to take a chance on 
the internet filter imploding so as to enjoy the 
greater good that is the NBN, this latest 
disgrace could be enough to make me vote for neither of the major parties.

How about you? Will this latest privacy invasion 
put you off Labor for good? Had the internet 
filter already convinced you to put your vote 
elsewhere? Or is this all OK with you? Are we 
simply wrong to expect our government to respect our privacy online?


URL:http://www.zdnet.com.au/privacy-betrayal-has-blown-labor-s-chances-339303844.htm



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the 
world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _