Beware the Secret State - Part Two

The Secret State is becoming more than a concept in Australia as successive governments spend more and more money on surveillance and give more and more surveillance power to federal and state government departments and agencies.

On 5 August 2014 the Prime Minister announced his intention to further broaden surveillance powers via the mandatory retention by service providers of all telecommunications metadata, in order for government agencies to access information on Australian citizens, permanent residents and visiting tourists. 

Between 1 July and 31 December 2013 just one of Australia’s major telecommunications companies received these requests for data held on its customers:

Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks 36,053

Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls 2,871

Court orders 270

Warrants for interception or access to stored communications 1,450

Total 40,644

Note: These figures do not include requests by national security agencies.

By 30 June 2014 these requests for data held on its customers in the 2013-14 financial year totalled :

Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks 75,448

Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls 6,202

Court orders 598

Warrants for interception or access to stored communications 2,701

Total  84,949

Note: These figures do not include requests by national security agencies.

In addition the centralised database of all Australian telephone numbers including the service and directory addresses provided by the customer, the Integrated Public Number Database (IPND), was accessed by agencies approximately 104,000 times (excluding national security agencies) during the 2013-14 financial year.

Those agencies who can access all this metadata with or without a warrant include; federal, state & territory police forces, Customs, CrimTrac, state anti-corruption agencies, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, state & territory corrective services, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Australian Securities & Investment Commission, Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post, Dept of Human Services (including Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support Program), Dept of Veterans’ Affairs, Dept of Immigration and Citizenship, Dept of Defence, State Emergency Services, the RSPCA, local councils – and many more.

That the system is open to possible abuse is evident.

The Global Mail reported on 13 December 2013 that:

In November [2013], Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus admitted his force had accessed the call data of “up to five” members of parliament. Negus made much of the judicial oversight, through the issuing of a warrant, for any interception of the contents of phone calls, emails or SMS messages – but the elephant in the room was his admission that up to five MPs had been the subjects of warrantless data-surveillance, and that no judge had any input at all regarding the propriety of this access….

The extent of use of these powers is surprising – and suggests that it is being used to shirk the hurdle of judicial oversight. No less than 40 government agencies made 293,501 warrantless requests for metadata from internet service providers in the 2011-12 financial year. Just 56,898 of those requests were made by the Federal Police, which has the primary criminal law-enforcement role. The RSPCA, Wyndham City Council, the Tax Practitioners Board and even the Victorian Taxi Directorate also have been allowed to access individual telecommunications data for a ‘law-enforcement purpose’. Why are we giving quangos and a taxi administrator the power to access often highly sensitive personal telecommunications data?

Voters will never know the level of metadata access, with or without a warrant, that has been available to national security agencies in the the last three financial years.

However, they do know that the Abbott Government intends to increase national security agency powers to spy on them, under the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 before the Senate .

The Australian Human Rights Commission stated that it is particularly concerned about the following elements of the bill which are overly broad in their coverage and which potentially impact upon rights to privacy and freedom of expression:

* Provisions enabling warrants for 12 months access to computers, computer networks and premises in the absence of adequate safeguards

* Blanket immunity to ASIO officers from Australian law in conducting surveillance activities with inadequate, independent oversight

* Strict liability for disclosure of information that could capture the work of journalists, among others.

That the Abbott Government intends to use this new legislation to capture journalists' sources can be inferred from this excerpt from a media report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 31 August 2014:

The Australian government has asked the federal police to investigate if lawyer Bernard Collaery and a former spy can be charged with disclosing classified information after revelations Australia spied on East Timor during sensitive oil and gas treaty talks.

Confirmation of the investigation came as the AFP asked the ABC to hand over material relating to its reports on the clandestine operation.

According to sources, the AFP was particularly keen on getting unedited footage of Mr Collaery's interviews with 7.30, Lateline and Four Corners.

It might also want an extract of an affidavit from the former Australian Secret Intelligence Service agent that reporter Conor Duffy claimed to have obtained.

In the interviews with the ABC and other media organisations, Mr Collaery – who had acted for East Timor and the former  ASIS agent – detailed how the former spy led the operation to insert listening devices into the wall cavity of East Timor's government offices under the cover of an aid project.

Attorney-General George Brandis and solicitor-general Justin Gleeson both said the former spy and Mr Collaery appeared to have breached laws preventing the public disclosure of classified information.

The offence carried a prison term of up to two years.

When asked if it was investigating Mr Collaery and the former spy for breaching commonwealth laws, a spokesman for the AFP said: "The AFP can confirm it has received a referral in relation to this matter. As this investigation is ongoing, it is inappropriate to comment further."

The referral was understood to have come from Senator Brandis or his department, which includes ASIO.

In emailed comments, Mr Collaery said he understood ASIO referred the matter to the AFP because of a suspected breach of section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act.

He noted that current ASIO boss David Irvine was head of ASIS at the time of the spying, which Mr Collaery said was illegal.

"This is the police knowingly or unknowingly trying to base a search warrant on an illegality. 

"The AFP should be investigating [former foreign minister Alexander] Downer and Irvine."

The ABC was considering its response but was understood to be prepared to reject the request, despite intimations from the AFP that it would seek a warrant for the material if it failed to comply.

While it was happy to provide footage that went to air (it was available online anyway), it regarded the unedited footage as including off-the-record information that might reveal the identity of protected sources.

Once again, Clarence Valley Council fails to consult the community. This time it's CCTV

 


It would appear that there is no tier of Australian government that is not intent on recording as much as possible about the lives and activities of its constituents.

On this occasion it is Clarence Valley Council, intent on encouraging the installation of CCTV cameras in the predominately small business districts scattered along the length of the river, and being this particular council, once again not asking residents using these streets whether or not they wish to shop, pay their bills or have a coffee under the gaze of one or more 27/7 street spies.

The Daily Examiner 19 December 2012:

An innovative program funded by Clarence Valley Council will provide local businesses with financial support to install CCTV.
The program is focused on addressing crimes, including vandalism, graffiti and break and enter, throughout the Valley.
"While we must keep in mind that our levels of these crimes are relatively low in comparison with other areas, there are some concerning incidents of crime happening locally which the business community and council are rightly concerned about." said the Mayor, Richie Williamson.
"This program will work hand in hand with other council and community strategies that target crime."
The program was developed after a series of consultations with NSW Police and the local business community…

So with Clarence Valley Council intent on encouraging private business to intrude on our everyday lives, is there likely to be any real and lasting benefit from the Big Brother effect?

Apparently not:

Though billions of dollars are being spent world wide on CCTV systems, there is actually little evidence as yet of the success of CCTV to combat or deter crime or its cost effectiveness in doing so..

The evidence that the benefits of CCTV will fade after a period of time are backed up by a number of studies. [Townsville City Council paper 2001]

 

CCTV was found to have no significant impact on total offences, total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful

entry), unlawful entry, other property damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and handling stolen goods) and total other offences (including drug offences, liquor (excluding drunkenness)) occurring in Surfers Paradise. Findings from Broadbeach indicated that CCTV had no impact on total offences or total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful entry) and other property damage). [Bond University Humanities & Social Sciences papers 2006]

 

The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysis generally showed worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing an undesirable or null effect on crime….

Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statistically significant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot range around the cameras. [American Civil Liberties Union]

 

But before we rush to put all of Melbourne under surveillance, we should heed the example of Britain, which, in the past 20 years has spent billions of dollars on more than a million CCTV cameras across its cities, yet still has one of the highest crime rates in Europe.

Indeed, four years ago the policeman in charge of monitoring London's massive CCTV network described it as "an utter fiasco" that was responsible for solving only 3 per cent of crimes.

Detective Chief Insp Mick Neville said that police often avoided trawling through CCTV images "because it's hard work" and he believed criminals had no fear of CCTV.

The marginal effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime has been well known for at least a decade. In 2002 a British Home Office review of studies into the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime found the overall reduction in crime in areas with CCTV was only 4 per cent. Half the studies examined showed CCTV had no effect on crime at all, and all showed it had no effect on violent crime. [The Herald Sun 28 September 2012]

 

The deputy director of the Sydney Institute of Criminology, Garner Clancey, says it is ''absolutely'' possible to move around the city without being caught on camera but most trips will be captured dozens if not hundreds of times.

However, there are questions over whether the huge costs to councils and the impositions on citizens' privacy are justified in an era when crime rates are falling.

''Crimes like motor vehicle theft and burglaries are falling,'' he said. ''Do we then say there's a point where cameras aren't cost-effective so we turn them off?

''Some of the crimes that have been increasing are around domestic violence where technologies like this will never have any impact so it's a difficult balancing act.'' [The Sydney Morning Herald 26 October 2012]

 

* Photograph found at Google Images

Roxon, Super Spy

Granny Herald 21st July 2012

Australian Attorney General Nicola Roxon, not content with creating a national database for all Australians when she was Federal Health Minster which collates everything personal and intimate a government agency has ever known about each and every one of us in the riskiest way possible, now wants to keep copies of all our online browsing and phone conversations for a two-year period. And it looks as though we will all be personally paying for this gratuitous government spying.

Her obsession with digital data is becoming pathological. Will someone call her GP – urgently.

The Federal Government wants to widen its ability to spy on Australian citizens

Australian Attorney General Nicola Roxon wants to declare open season on all taxpayers, retirees, welfare recipients, people with business/home computers or email accounts and those with fixed/mobile phones.

Apparently seeking to widen the ability of six intelligence and security agencies, interception agencies, law enforcement bodies and a range of regulatory bodies such as the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and a range of State and Territory government organisations to intercept/collect data on or surveil any individual (regardless of whether or not they are suspected of breaking the law) and conduct surveillance of or physically search the premises or belongings of any person of interest.

Ms. Roxon appears to expect all Australians to pay, for this increase in electronic data/telecommunications content collection and interference with lawful computer/phone use, through higher telco and internet service provider fees and charges.

It is no co-incidence that last Thursday was first time a director-general of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) has spoken publicly since the agency was created 60 years ago - to assure the general public that his agency was an upright, touchy feely agency dedicated to protecting the country from all manner of foes and bogey men.

Unfortunately, these assurances ring hollow for many who have had even a modicum of contact with our home-grown spies.

The Joint Committee media release:

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

MEDIA RELEASE Issued: 9 July 2012

Chair: Hon Anthony Byrne MP Deputy Chair: Hon Philip Ruddock MP

Committee to examine potential reforms of national security legislation

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has commenced an inquiry into potential reforms of national security legislation.

The Government has asked the Committee to consider a package of national security ideas comprising proposals for telecommunications interception reform, telecommunications sector security reform and Australian intelligence community legislation reform. The Inquiry will include examination of:

·         Lawful access to telecommunications, to ensure that investigative tools are not lost as telecommunications providers change their business practices and begin to delete data more regularly.

·         Safeguards and privacy protections, including clarifying the roles of the Commonwealth and state ombudsmen in overseeing telecommunications interception by law enforcement agencies.

·         An authorised intelligence operations scheme, to afford ASIO officers the same protections which currently apply to officers of the Australian Federal Police for authorised operations.

Among a range of other matters, the Committee will consult on measures to address security risks posed to the telecommunications sector, and whether the Government needs to institute obligations on the Australian telecommunications industry to protect their networks from unauthorised interference.

The Chair of the Committee, the Hon Anthony Byrne MP, has welcomed the referral of the inquiry, stating that: “It is vital that our security laws keep pace with the rapid developments in technology”. Commenting on the importance of public input into the Parliament’s examination of the potential reforms, Mr Byrne said the Committee’s inquiry will give the public an opportunity to have a say in the development of new laws in the critical area of national security.

The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions addressing the terms of reference by Monday, 6 August 2012. The full terms of reference are available on the Committee’s website at: www.aph.gov.au/pjcis.

The Government has provided the Committee with a discussion paper which accompanies the terms of reference and describes the reform proposals. The discussion paper is available on the Committee’s web site. Submitters are strongly encouraged to have regard to the discussion paper in the preparation of submissions for the Committee’s inquiry.

For more information, visit the Committee’s website at http://www.aph.gov.au/pjcis or contact the Committee Secretariat on 02 6277 2360.

Telephone: 02 6277 2360 PO BOX 6021 Facsimile: 02 6277 2067 PARLIAMENT HOUSE Email: pjcis@aph.gov.au CANBERRA ACT 2600 Website: www.aph.gov.au/pjcis