Govt fears releasing information on its controversial plan to store traffic history for all Internet users could “lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making.”
The Australian govt seems to be going out of its way to prove the public’s worst fears about its plans to expand law enforcement powers on the Internet. Aside form its “voluntary mandatory” ISP filtering regime of all “inappropriate content” and “offensive and illegal material,” which was recently put on hold for at least a year, the govt is also moving forward with plans to force ISPs to retain the web browsing history of all Australians regardless of whether or not they’ve been suspected of a crime.
Worse still, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, a document it obtained under the country’s freedom of information (FoI) laws outlining those plans is heavily censored preventing the public from determining what exactly it has in mind. It was circulated among ISPs for what it claims are “consultation purposes and is not for further distribution.” ISPs were sworn to secrecy over the exact nature of its content.
The Attorney-General’s Department legal officer, Claudia Hernandez, explained in the decision letter says that although she recognizes the importance of the “public’s right to participate in and influence the process of govt decision making and policy formation, given the early stage of this consultation, the premature release of the proposal could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression [of the document.]”
“In addition, as the matters have not been settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate,” she adds. “Rather, I consider that the release of such documents may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede govt decision making.”
It’s a curious line of reasoning. Never before has the govt proposed such far reaching censorship plans, and to suggest that making the consultations public “could be misleading” and cause “premature and unnecessary debate” is insulting. How can its own written words be “misleading” and how can it argue that public debate of such an important topic could be “premature” or “unnecessary?”
“This excuse is extraordinary,” says Green Party communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam. “Why is the Department making such an effort to keep this information hidden?”
The Attorney-General’s Department has also been in talks with the country’s ISPs to implement a traffic history regime for individual subscribers that also has the Green Party concerned.
The party has expressed dismay at the Federal Government’s refusal to reveal details of consultations with industry over plans to force Internet Service Providers to store web browsing histories of all Australian internet users.
“The Government has denied web browser history would be required to be logged, saying it would only be data about a communication not the content of the communication,” it says. “This is defined as: This includes information about the identity of the sending and receiving parties (A and B parties), when a communication started and stopped, and the type of communication. Surely this constitutes web browsing histories by anyone’s language?”
With the document already having been distributed among ISPs for discussion it’s hard to figure out why the govt insists on the document remaining secret unless it knows it contains proposals the public will find unsettling like data retention.
“We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn’t be worried about people having insight into the consultation,” says Electronic Frontiers Australia’s Colin Jacobs. “This is a very sensitive and important issue. It raises huge questions about privacy, data security and the burden of increased costs to smaller internet service providers. What really needs to be debated is what particular information they want, because that’s where the privacy issue rears its ugly head.”
Exactly. Being that the proposals have such implications for all of the Australian public keeping their details secret only makes people even more wary of what they are and poisons the whole debate. If the plans are as important as the govt says they are then surely the public would have to agree, and if they don’t then it’s the govt’s duty to begin making the case for why they are.
Stay tuned.
lead to premature unnecessary debate – no need for asking questions
How can its own written words be “misleading” ? – because, authorities rely on fuzzy logic.
what is the goverments true agenda? – idk, control?
Goverment with an agenda and is not to be trusted as there is lots more to the issue and may have far reaching consquences for us the recipients of such a regime is to be implemented. Come what may they will never tell us the full extent of there intentions. i wonder what could be possibly worth all this. There is a dictatorship smell about this and it makes you wonder how much more of an insult is there to come to the free citizens of the world and it just proves if a goverment or a corporation has a technology it will be used and abused against the citizens as if they are some kind of criminal. A threat and it makes you think what could the law abiding citizen be a threat to. What makes this particularly interesting is. what is the goverments true agenda?
what a effed up country.
What irks me the most about this entire debacle is that The Federal Government had already spent millions of tax dollars on an internet filter for Windows which was/is freely downloadable and has been available for years. (Think Netnanny and similar programs). Those who want to “protect the children” from the evils of the internet have been able to do so at the click of a button for a very long time.
Actually, what fucks me off the most is that I’m over the age of consent (by a long margin) yet my government insists on protecting me from myself on the premise that it’s good for me.
/pissed off Aussie