[LINK] Fairfax: Big Brother laws grossly disproportionate to any threat

[Jan Whitaker]

Big Brother laws grossly disproportionate to any threat

Eileen Ormsby
Published: August 31, 2012 - 9:42AM

ORWELLIAN intrusion is the most important reason why we should oppose 
proposed laws that would allow the web and telecommunications data of 
all Australians to be stored for two years.

But when added to evidence that similar measures to those proposed by 
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon have done nothing to prevent crime in 
other parts of the world, the laws are a grossly disproportionate 
response to any threat.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about,'' goes 
the mantra. Putting aside you could apply the same logic to the 
curtains on your windows, even if it were true, why introduce costly 
new laws that are nothing more than image management for the 
government? If effected, the proposed laws would not only amount to a 
serious invasion of privacy, they would, at best, be useless in 
preventing any significant crime and may actually impede law enforcement.

I have written a couple of features for The Age concentrating on the 
operation of the ''Dark Web'' - that part of the internet accessible 
only through special software that ensures anonymity of users. My 
research included interviews with university professors, a 
representative of Tor (the best known of the anonymous service 
providers) and law enforcement. A recurring theme was that data 
retention legislation is a feel-good bandage designed to make 
governments look like they are ''doing something'' rather than an 
effective tool to catch criminals.

Real terrorists and organised criminals already know how to 
circumvent data retention laws. They use prepaid SIM cards for their 
mobile phones and conduct their online activities through one of the 
many darknets (anonymous peer-to-peer filesharing networks). The 
proposed laws will have no effect on those who conduct their criminal 
activities through a darknet because nothing is logged - there is no 
history to keep. There's a reason that child-porn networks and black 
markets can operate quite openly beyond the reach of law enforcement.

But new laws can prompt the offenders that haven't taken precautions 
to tighten security, while ordinary Australians will have search 
histories, Facebook chats and eBay purchases logged.

Setting up anonymising software and VPNs (virtual private networks) 
is no longer just the domain of the computer nerd. The most 
technologically challenged among us can download the do-it-yourself 
software. The main drawback is that it is slow, reminiscent of the 
days of dial-up. But the threat of government snooping has been 
proved to cause privacy-loving citizens to seek ways to keep Big 
Brother out of their affairs, using encrypted data and VPNs or 
surfing the web using anonymising services such as Tor, Freenet or 
I2P. Cybernorms Research group at Lund University, Sweden, found that 
the introduction of similar laws designed to combat piracy led to a 
dramatic increase in people turning to such measures.

A German study analysing Federal Crime Agency statistics found that 
data-retention legislation did not lead to higher crime clearance 
rates nor did it improve security in general. More serious criminal 
acts were registered by German police than before the retention of 
all communications data but they were cleared less often. The report 
concludes that blanket data retention can actually be detrimental to 
the investigation of serious crime, facilitating some investigations, 
but frustrating many more as people resort to using encryption, 
internet cafes, anonymity services and unregistered SIM cards to 
protect their privacy.

As I understand it, law enforcement can discern that encrypted 
information is going out, but not what that information is. So heavy 
encrypted traffic may be an indicator of criminal activity; but as 
more people move to anonymising software to protect their privacy, 
similar traffic patterns may just mean a person doesn't want the 
government snooping into their perfectly legal affairs or discovering 
they have a penchant for granny porn. Or as Andrew Lewman of Tor 
says, ''Now everything's encrypted so everything looks criminal. The 
patterns of a 12-year-old planning a surprise party looks just like 
the pattern of terrorists planning an attack. So [law enforcement] 
end up wasting resources.''

Lewman says that the US government-funded Tor works closely with law 
enforcement agencies. ''Having spoken to SOCA, the Serious Organised 
Crime Agency, their attitude has been these laws have made their life 
much more difficult.''

It is simply not possible to analyse scores of terabytes of data in 
real time to prevent terrorist attacks or criminal activities. ''I 
want law enforcement to be able to do their job, but burying them in 
vast quantities of data they can't manage and don't understand is 
only going to help the criminals,'' Lewman says.

Finally, if ISPs save data, they may become a more appealing target 
for hackers who want to access juicy or sensitive data with which to 
blackmail customers, or steal identities for financial gain.

I'm not convinced that the benefits of allowing the government to spy 
on me outweigh my right to privacy. And I'm not even into granny porn.

Eileen Ormsby, a former lawyer, is a freelance writer with an 
interest in cyber crime.

<https://twitter.com/NationalTimesAU>Follow the National Times on Twitter

This story was found at: 
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/big-brother-laws-grossly-disproportionate-to-any-threat-20120830-253fu.html 




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

_ __________________ _