"I’m going to keep going until I get the numbers. I’m not stopping" [Minister for Home Affairs & Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton on the subject of his desire to be Australian prime minister, quoted in "The Bigger Picture", April 2020]
It has become notable that since September-August 2018 when Peter Dutton's bid to topple then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull succeeded but his bid to become Australian prime minister failed - primarily because he and Turnbull were both outfoxed by a duplicitous Scott Morrison - Dutton disappears into the shadows during the worst phases of national crises or major political scandal.
One suspects he does so as he doesn't want voters to negatively associate him with either crises or scandal, because he hasn't given up his ambition to be prime minister after the next federal election.
As Dutton's worldview is as much a threat to democratic processes as is the worldview of current prime minister Scott Morrison, voters would do well to keep in mind what Dutton would like to impose on Australian society.
Sydney
Criminal Lawyers, 20 April 2020:
Peter
Dutton Proposes Prison for Refusing to Provide Passwords
Home
Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has been absent from the media
spotlight in recent times, ever since he contracted coronavirus.
And
many are asking where the man at the helm of curtailing civil
liberties on a federal level has been in the midst of the current
pandemic.
The
man at the helm of the surveillance state
Mr
Dutton has been credited with proposing a wide range of laws designed
to increase the power of authorities at the expense of individual
liberties.
Perhaps
most recently, Mr Dutton proposed laws which would result in prison
time for those who fail or refuse to hand over their passwords or
PINs when requested to do so by authorities.
Peter
Dutton has said the laws are needed to help police catch criminals
who are hiding behind encryption technology – a line we have heard
many times before as the country’s law makers put in place
draconian measures to grant police and other authorities surveillance
powers that encroach upon our privacy.
Under
the proposals, which is currently on hold, people who are not even
suspected of a crime, could face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to
five years’ imprisonment for declining to provide a password to
their smartphone, computer or other electronic devices.
Furthermore,
anyone (an IT professional, for example) who refuses to help the
authorities crack a computer system when ordered will face up to five
years in prison. If the crime being investigated is terrorism-related
then the penalty for non-compliance increases to 10 years in prison
and/or a $126,000 fine.
Tech
companies who refuse to assist authorities to crack encryption when
asked to do so, will face up to $10 million in fines. What’s more,
if any employee of the company tells anyone else they have been told
to do this, they will face up to five years in gaol.
Under
the legislation, foreign countries can also ask Australia’s
Attorney General for police to access data in your computer to help
them investigate law-breaking overseas.
Australia’s
hyper-legislative response to September 11
Since
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the
Australian parliament has responded to the threat of terrorism here
and overseas by enacting more than 80 new laws and amending existing
laws – many of them with wide-reaching consequences, such as the
terrorism laws used to conduct raids on journalist Annika Smethurst’s
home and the ABC’s head offices, as well as charge former military
lawyer and whistleblower David Mc Bride with offences that could see
him spending the rest of his life in gaol.
Controversial
metadata laws too, introduced in 2015, seriously impact our personal
privacy requiring telecommunications companies to retain metadata
including information on who you call or text, where you make calls
from, and who you send emails to.
The
problem is that once these kinds of extraordinarily heavy-handed
powers are legislated, they are very seldom retracted or rescinded.
In many cases, over time, they are expanded. Australia’s oversight
body the Australian Law Reform Commission can review laws that are
already in place, but it has limited powers which only enable the
commission to make recommendations for change, not to actually change
the laws themselves.
Police
already have the power to seize a phone or laptop if you have been
arrested.
Border
Force has even more extensive seize and search powers.
The
extensive powers of border force
In
2018, Border Force made headlines after intercepting an
British-Australian citizen travelling through Sydney airport seizing
his devices.
Nathan
Hague, a software developer was not told what would be done with his
devices, why they were being inspected or whether his digital data
was being copied and stored. He believes his laptop password was
cracked.
Australian
Border Forces have extensive powers to search people’s baggage at
Australian airports. These are contained in section 186 of Customs
Act 1901 (Cth). These include opening baggage, reading documents, and
using an X-ray or detection dog to search baggage.
The
Customs Act allows officers to retain an electronic device for up to
14 days if there is no content on the device which renders it subject
to seizure. And if it is subject to seizure, the device may be
withheld for a longer period.
ABF
officers have the power to copy a document if they’re satisfied it
may contain information relevant to prohibited goods, to certain
security matters or an offence against the Customs Act. A document
includes information on phones, SIM cards, laptops, recording devices
and computers.
No comments:
Post a Comment