SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Boing Boing reports
The exceptionally broad new surveillance bill lets the government do nearly unlimited warrantless mass surveillance, even of lawyer-client privileged communications, and bans warrant canaries, making it an offense to "disclose information about the existence or non-existence" of a warrant to spy on journalists.
Despite that move away from retaining communications metadata by the EU and continuing concerns in the US about the National Security Agency's bulk phone metadata spying program, the Australian government was able to push through the amendments implementing data retention thanks to the support of the main opposition party. Labor agreed to vote in favor of the Bill once a requirement to use special "journalist information warrants" was introduced for access to journalists' metadata, with a view to shielding their sources. No warrant is required for obtaining the metadata of other classes of users, not even privileged communications between lawyers and their clients. Even for journalists, the extra protection is weak, and the definition of what constitutes a journalist is rather narrow--bloggers and occasional writers are probably not covered.
Warrant canaries can't be used in this context either. Section 182A of the new law says that a person commits an offense if he or she discloses or uses information about "the existence or non-existence of such a [journalist information] warrant." The penalty upon conviction is two years imprisonment.
During the relatively quick passage of the amendments, the Australian government made the usual argument that metadata needs to be retained for long periods in order to fight terrorism and serious crime--even though the German experience is that, in practice, data retention does not help. Toward the end of the debate, when concerns about journalist sources were raised, one senior member of the Australian government adopted a more unusual approach to calming people's fears.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Subsentient on Monday April 06 2015, @10:45PM
It should have been expected honestly. You were using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit, a spirit I don't like, but nonetheless that's what it was.
It's a shame this happened but not at all surprising to me.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @11:28PM
In many ways, Australia is ha far more draconian country than the US.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:38AM
Democracy is when the elected do what electors want.
Now somebody will tell me that the average elector is concerned with warrant canaries, right?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:19AM
Maybe, but the US Gov has greater reach and influence than the Australian Gov.
The Australian Gov lacks the power to stop some Bolivian ambassador's plane from entering France, Portugal etc.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/ [cnn.com]
I wonder though if the Australian Gov could get NZ to do what they did to Kim Dotcom. Might burn more being called a dog of Australia than of the US...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Monday April 06 2015, @11:46PM
True, but then that tends to be a large purpose of the law - otherwise there wouldn't be nearly as many loopholes for the wealthy to exploit. It's only seen as a problem when the little guys manage to start exploiting them.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @11:50PM
Do the wealthy routinely reveal the existence of a secret warrant?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:38AM
Wrong question. It should be "Do the wealthy routinely try to ensure that they'll be informed of any secret warrants against them"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:57AM
Or perhaps "Will the 0,1% at the top ensure they get know about anything that may dislodge their power?".