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.
Related Stories
Two items of news from Australia which mirror similar stories from other countries in the West.
Australian legislation to counter piracy finally released
Kept under wraps until this morning [Mar 26], the site-blocking elements of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 are likely to please rights holders with their significant reach. The bill, which is set to cost telcos about $130,000 a year, contains no cap on the number of websites rights holders can request a judge to block in a single injunction.
Critics of the regime are likely to argue that having no cap on the scheme could result in what happened in India, where a number of legitimate websites were blocked, including Google services, when a judge agreed to block some 472 websites. An updated judgement fixed the error. But it appears consumers and rights groups won't be able to apply to a court to revoke blocks, as they are not listed as one of the types of parties that can do this.
The competition watchdog, the ACCC, and the communications regulator, the ACMA, are the only people envisaged by the government to be able to apply to revoke a block other than the people behind a blocked site, an internet service provider asked to block it, or a rights holder.
Mandatory Data Retention Becomes Law in Australia
The Australian Parliament has passed a series of amendments to the country's Telecommunications Interception and Access Act 1979, requiring "telecommunications service providers to retain for two years telecommunications data (not content) prescribed by regulations". The Coalition government and Labor party joined forces to pass the laws, ignoring a number of last-minute amendments from the Greens and other senators.
The Register reports that Attorney-General George Brandis continues to misrepresent the data retention requirement:
Brandis told ABC Radio's AM program this morning that “nothing is different to the way it has been for the last 20 years or so”. Yet Telstra recently told a Parliamentary Committee that it doesn't record IP addresses or missed call records for users of its mobile networks. So Telstra is clearly being asked to do something new.
The AM interview we've linked to above is worth a listen because Brandis, six months into the metadata debate, still can't speak with authority on the subject. He jitters and struggles to articulate his position. At times he makes little sense, such as when asked why we need metadata retention when there are so many alternative communications media for ne'er-do-wells to use. His response is that criminals always break the law and will continue to do so despite the new legislation.
Left unsettled is the cost of metadata retention to ISPs, which recently led them to write an open letter to George Brandis. One report suggests a cost of AU$3.98 per subscriber per year.
(Score: 5, Funny) by fishybell on Monday April 06 2015, @10:38PM
This post has REDACTED been subject to a warrant.
(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?".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday April 06 2015, @10:51PM
I dream of a place where a spy agency would knock at the door of a business with a warrant signed by a judge, and request the cooperation of the good citizens who work there in apprehending the specific named alleged criminal for the greater good of society.
Silly, ain't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:03PM
I hope you realize cops can get blank warrants presigned by a judge.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @11:20PM
The AC says:
I hope you realize cops can get blank warrants presigned by a judge.
Maybe in Australia, but in the US, either a State or Federal Judge commits a crime by signing a blank warrant.
Some have been hounded from office for doing so.
There are John Doe warrants issued (rarely), but even these must state enough information to prevent picking up
any random citizen. Description, crime, locations, times etc.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:01AM
Have any been removed from office, prosecuted and been put in jail?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:08AM
Don't know how it works in the US, but isn't "exigent circumstance [wikipedia.org]" abused like in the rest of the world?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:10AM
A judge isn't involved in exigent circumstance cases in the US.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by VortexCortex on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:44AM
Oh yeah, well, I've "repaired" some government PCs and seen the blank warrants ready for cops to print out as many as they want, pre-signed, some even with boilerplate arrest language like, "When I approached the vehicle I smelled the presence of alcohol", just to be sure the cop doesn't forget to invent a probable cause. Also seen a fair share of school district miss appropriation of funds, etc. It's all in my insurance file.
Seeing things like that gets the FBI and DHS breathing down your neck, harassing you; It does not get Judges, Officials, Officers, District Attorneys or School Boards fired. The media doesn't even want to know about the corruption unless it's OK'd by the state first (for use as political propaganda).
I don't know what country you think you live in, but the USA is fucked.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:15AM
Wait, you are equating a document template with a blank warrant pre-signed by a judge? Are you daft?
You can download blank search warrants from the web. Getting a Judge to sign it while its still blank is a totally different thing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:34AM
"pre-signed"
(Score: 2, Funny) by anubi on Tuesday April 07 2015, @04:15AM
What I fear is the day this will be done via telepresence robot.
The smiling face of an empowered elite will be on the screen, pleasantly stating its demands. Failure to comply will result in the robotic combat unit parked outside coming online. The transmission likely originating from somewhere like Singapore/Malaysia/Kuala Lumpur which is heavily internet-connected as well as safely away from the infuriated people which just might overpower their robot and jam the enforcement devices they are using to impose their will on others from afar.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:34AM
You do realize that there are vast regions on this planet where there is no access to internet connections and even hi-resolution satellite cannot track one individual.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:29PM
Yet.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by Ox0000 on Tuesday April 07 2015, @01:37PM
How hard would it be to build an EMP device powerful enough to disable these warrior bots?
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:48AM
How hard would it be to destroy a bot? Damned easy. Probably simply punching it with your hand would probably disable *it*.
But, in doing so, you have just given the powers that can your life miserable a reason to do just that.
Debt charges for damaging a corporate telepresence robot simply accrue to your account.
I have seen those telepresence robots and I find them extremely degrading to have to deal with someone via one of them. It simply looks to me like yet another way the elite can reinforce the claim that they are superior to me and I have to obey them. As far as I have seen, one's ability to coerce others to do his will is considered the most useful skill of business and goes by the name "leadership skill". It was my experience that in the corporate world, "leadership" skills were a helluva lot more valuable than engineering skills. One can always hire more engineers if the ones you have do not take kindly to a manager's "leadership style".
I can right now see telepresence robots used for delivering layoff notices to people, as it would provide video and audio proof that papers have been served. I can see these telepresence bots doing all sorts of "notification services" such as rent and debt collection, evictions, and other services for the elite where it would be very risky to send a human.
Look at the federal funds interest rate charts. They are all over the net. It looks pretty scary to me that if the bankers pull another fast one like they did a few years ago, there is no longer a cushion to "drop rates" in order to re-liquidate the market. Landlords up the their gills in debt will have to collect from people who have nothing to give, then evict them so as to give a clear message to the other tenants not to skip rent. Throwing a unfortunate family out on the street may not sit well with a lot of people, and physical retaliation may ensue, just as physical retaliation is sure to ensue if resistance is offered to an enforcement officer.
There are a large number of elite who do not work. All they do is keep ledgers of who owes them what, collecting usury on that which they can coin out of thin air - such as debt instruments. This elite will do whatever is necessary to work with lawmakers so their claims to that which they did not lift a finger to earn will be respected by law coined in behalf of the elite.
We are falling for it, and selling ourselves into slavery... except we have another word for it. it's called "debt".
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:23AM
In my country the police should be feared more than the terrorists (they kill and "kidnap" more). And many of the seeds of terrorism were sown by the religious teachers and organizations that the Gov has approved.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Monday April 06 2015, @11:25PM
In case you were wondering what the "unusual approach" was:
Speaking to Sky News, Australia's Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that there were "always ways for people to get around things." As The Guardian reported, Turnbull went on to list a few ways to dodge the new law: "If... I communicate with you via Skype, for a voice call, or Viber, or I send you a message on Whatsapp or Wickr or Threema or Signal or Telegram—there's a gazillion of them—or indeed if we have a Facetime call, then all that the telco can see insofar as it can see anything is that my device has had a connection with, say, the Skype server or the Whatsapp server… it doesn’t see anything happen with you."
(Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @11:53PM
So the man lies publicly as well? Who woulda thunk it!?
He only names what he already has penetrated.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:51AM
He says he uses these apsps himself..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/malcolm-turnbull-uses-secret-messaging-app-instead-of-sms/6276712 [abc.net.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:50AM
How long will it take the other "5 Eyes" countries to come with similar legislation and ban warrant canaries ? It seems to be canaries all the way down ...
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gman003 on Monday April 06 2015, @11:36PM
"As of April 6th, 2015, we have received no warrants for user information, or orders to insert a backdoor or other data-gathering system.
As of April 6th, 2015, we have received no warrants for information subject to a gag order.
As of April 6th, 2015, we have received no court orders to lie to you about receiving warrants subject to a gag order.
As of April 6th, 2015, we have received no court orders to deny lying to you about warrants subject to a gag order.
As of April 6th, 2015, we have received no court orders to remove all references to court orders and warrants."
Eventually they'll either realize that they're being evil and stop, or get pissed off at people foiling their sinister plots and throw you in jail (which itself serves as a sort of warrant canary).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:01AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjwt on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:12AM
Not sure if you read, but thats the point, posts like that are now illegal, each with a 2 year jail sentence.
(Score: 1) by rea1l1 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:08AM
"As of April 6th, 2015, we cannot confirm if we have or have not received warrants for user information, or orders to insert a backdoor or other data-gathering system.
As of April 6th, 2015, we cannot confirm if we have or have not received warrants for information subject to a gag order.
As of April 6th, 2015, we cannot confirm if we have or have not received court orders to lie to you about receiving warrants subject to a gag order.
As of April 6th, 2015, we cannot confirm if we have or have not received court orders to deny lying to you about warrants subject to a gag order.
As of April 6th, 2015, we cannot confirm if we have or have not received court orders to remove all references to court orders and warrants."
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:45AM
Are the Australians familiar with "Jury Nullification"? I assume the government won't risk a show trial in a Kangaroo Court.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Leebert on Monday April 06 2015, @11:57PM
So, having all the way down through the SN summary that was copy/pasted from a Boing Boing article that was copy/pasted from the origial Ars Technica article, I was still not able to fully understand this.
Is the act of publishing the canary illegal, or is it the failure to continue publishing the canary after you have been served with a gag order?
I'm just trying to figure out what combination of the following apply:
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:19AM
That was going to be my next point: host your service in a US Red state, and claim that your religion forbids you from acting deceptively, therefore allowing you to ignore the gag orders.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:28AM
The gag order probably applies to the person. And if they are in Australia then the law applies and its teeth.
(Score: 1) by Ox0000 on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:01PM
But it's not the person publishing/removing the canary, it's the company... oh wait... those are people too...
Well, I guess they'll just have to throw the company in prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @05:33AM
So what you are saying is that in future all Australian based canary systems should be handled by an entity which cannot be thrown in prison
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @05:03AM
"The .au government is infringing on free speech"
If everyone started posting that they haven't received any warrants from the government then the government would have to go after everyone and maybe put everyone in jail or fine them. Good luck with that.
"The .au government is attacking religion or other moral standards which prohibit lying"
Forcing people to lie is a PR nightmare for any government.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:59AM
It does seem like it will be an offence to do something, but also an offence not to do something too.
For example, if I discover that upon receipt of a government order that my site is no longer commercially viable, do I have to continue to maintain that site (ad infinitum?) in order not to give anyone the idea that I might have received the said order? I hope the government are going to pay for the cost of running the site in such a case, because it will no longer be paying for itself. Is the intent to drive site owners of those sites that 'offend' the government into bankruptcy?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:40AM
I would answer you, but I can be fired for doing so.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:31PM
There's only one solution: Make sure that when you get a gag order, you do not possess any useful information that you might hand over, or the ability to gain that information in any way. Then you don't need a warrant canary, since a gag order doesn't do any harm.
This especially means: Do not produce/ask for any information that you do not absolutely need. If your users store data on your site, make sure their data is encrypted, that only they possess the encryption key, and don't provide them with proprietary software to access their data; make all your access software FOSS, and use only open standards for encryption/communication, ideally standards where several independent implementations exist. Make the service you provide as little as possible reliant on your servers. Provide open source software for your servers, so that anyone can set up a replacement server should the need arise (or appear to arise). Make it easy for users to get their data out of your system, and to delete their data from your system.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:37PM
What about storing any necessary data on a 3rd party site in some other country?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.