Call to update existing privacy and human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and techniques

In June 2013 the Australian Government stated its intention to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP).

On 17 December 2013 a letter signed by more than 100 organisations and individuals was sent to all OGP governments regarding the transparency of global mass surveillance.

One has to wonder if the Abbott Government intends to join the OGP on schedule in April 2014, given that this organisation was established to provide an international platform for domestic reformers committed to making their governments more open, accountable, and responsive to citizens and Australian security organizations are implicated in the concerns set out in the following letter:

17 December 2013

To the Co-Chairs of the Open Government Partnership

Hon. Kuntoro Mangkusubroto 

Hon. Alejandra Lagunes 

Ms. Suneeta Kaimal 

Mr. Rakesh Rajani 

 

Cc: Jourdan Hussein, Ania Calderón Mariscal; OGP Steering Committee members; OGP members   

Statement of Concern on Disproportionate Surveillance 

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, affirm our deep commitment to the goals of the Open Government Partnership,which in its declaration endorsed "more transparent,accountable,responsive effective government," founded on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

We join other civil society organisations, human rights groups, academics and ordinary citizens in expressing our grave concern over allegations that governments around the world, including many OGP members, have been routinely intercepting and retaining the private communications of entire populations, in secret, without particularised warrants and with little or no meaningful oversight. Such practices allegedly include the routine exchange of "foreign" surveillance data, bypassing domestic laws that restrict governments' ability to spy on their own citizens. 

These practices erode the checks and balances on which accountability depends, and have a deeply chilling effect on freedom of expression, information and association, without which the ideals of open government have no meaning. 

As Brazil's President, DilmaRousseff, recently said at the United Nations, "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy." Activities that restrict the right to privacy, including communications surveillance, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and are proportionate to the aim pursued.

Without firm legislative and judicial checks on the surveillance powers of the executive branch, and robust protections for the media and public interest whistleblowers, as outlined in the Tshwane Principles, abuses can and will occur.  We call on all governments, and specifically OGP members, to: 

* recognise the need to update understandings of existing privacy and human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and techniques.

* commit in their OGP Action Plans to complete by October 2014 a review of national laws, with the aim of defining reforms needed to regulate necessary, legitimate and proportional State involvement in communications surveillance; to guarantee freedom of the press; and to protect whistleblowers who lawfully reveal abuses of state power.

* commit in their OGP Action Plans to transparency on the mechanisms for surveillance, on exports of surveillance technologies, aid directed towards implementation of surveillance technologies, and agreements to share citizen data among states.

SIGNED:

International and regional organisations

1. ACCESS Info Europe 2. Africa Freedom of Information Centre 3. Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información 4. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression 5. Centre for Law and Democracy 6. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) 7. CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation 8. Global Integrity 9. Global Network Initiative 10. HIVOS 11. Oxfam International 12. Privacy International 13. World Wide Web Foundation National organisations 1. Access to Information Programme, Bulgaria 2. Acción Ciudadana, Guatemala 3. Active Citizen, Ireland 4. Africa Center for Open Governance, Kenya 5. AktionFreiheitstatt Angst e.V. (Freedom Not Fear), Germany 6. Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa, South Africa 7. Association EPAS, Romania 8. Asociación para una Sociedad Más Justa, Honduras 9. Bolo Bhi, Pakistan 10. Brazilian Society for Knowledge Management (SBGC) 11. Center for Effective Government, USA 12. Center for Independent Journalism, Romania 13. Center for Peace Studies, Croatia 14. Center for Public Interest Advocacy, Bosnia Herzegovina 15. Centro Internacional para Investigaciones en Derechos Humanos, Guatemala 16. Centro for Public Integrity, Mozambique 17. Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt, Poland 18. Charity & Security Network, USA 19. Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Nigeria 20. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), USA 21. Citizens United to Promote Peace & Democracy in Liberia 22. Corruption Watch, UK 23. DATA, Uruguay 24. Defending Dissent Foundation, USA 25. Democracy Watch, Canada 26. Digital Courage, Germany 27. Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan 28. Diritto Di Sapere, Italy 29. e-Governance Academy, Estonia 30. East European Development Institute, Poland 31. Economic Research Center, Azerbaijan 32. Federal Accountability Initiative For Reform, Canada 33. Foundation Open Society (FOSM), Macedonia 34. Foundation for Science and Liberal Arts Domus Dorpatensis, Estonia 35. Freedom of Information Center, Armenia 36. Freedom of Information Forum, Austria (FOIAustria) 37. Freedom of Information Foundation, Russia 38. Fundar, Center for Research and Analysis, Mexico 39. GESOC, Mexico 40. Global Human Rights Communications, India 41. GodlyGlobal.org, Switzerland 42. GONG, Croatia 43. Hong Kong In-Media, Hong Kong 44. Hungarian Civil Liberties Union 45. Independent Journalism Center, Moldova 46. INESC, Brazil 47. Initiative für Netzfreiheit, Austria 48. Institute for Democracy 'Societas Civilis'-Skopje (IDSCS), Macedonia 49. Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, Georgia 50. Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad A.C., Mexico 51. International Records Management Trust, UK 52. Integrity Action, UK 53. IT for Change, India 54. Iuridicum Remedium, Czech Republic 55. Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria 56. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (Association for the Empowerment of Workers and Peasants), India 57. NATO Watch, UK 58. Obong Denis Udo-Inyang Foundation, Nigeria 59. OneWorld – Platform for Southeast Europe (OWPSEE), Europe 60. openDemocracy.net, UK 61. Open Democracy Advice Centre, South Africa 62. Open Australia Foundation 63. Open Government Institute, Moldova 64. Open Ministry, Finland 65. Open the Government.org, USA 66. Open Knowledge Finland 67. Open Knowledge Foundation, UK 68. Open Knowledge Foundation Ireland 69. Open Rights Group, UK 70. Paradigm Initiative, Nigeria 71. Paraguayan Association of Information Technology Law, Paraguay 72. Philippines Internet Freedom Alliance 73. Privacy and Access Council of Canada — Conseil du Canada de l'Accès et la vie Privée 74. PRO Media, Macedonia 75. PROETICA PERU 76. Programa Estudiantil Juventud Siglo XXI, Mexico 77. Project on Government Oversight, USA 78. Public Concern at Work, UK 79. Public Virtue Institute, Indonesia 80. Publish What You Pay Indonesia 81. Request Initiative, UK 82. Sahkar Social Welfare Association, Pakistan 83. Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa 84. Shaaub for Democracy Culture Foundation, Iraq 85. Social Research and Development Center, Yemen 86. Soros Foundation Romania, Romania 87. Stati Generali dell'Innovazione, Italy 88. TEDIC, Paraguay 89. Transparencia por Colombia 90. Transparency International Armenia 91. Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina 92. Transparency International Indonesia 93. Transparency International Ireland 94. Transparency International Macedonia 95. Transparency International Mongolia 96. Transparency International Switzerland 97. Unwanted Witness, Uganda 98. Water Governance Institute (WGI), Uganda 99. Whistleblowers Network, Germany 100. Youth Advocate Program International, Inc, USA 101. Zenu Network, Cameroon

Individuals

1. Aruna Roy, Founder, MKSS India and member of India's National Advisory Council 2. Tim Berners-Lee 3. Vinod Rai, Former Comptroller and Auditor General, India 4. Rebecca MacKinnon 5. Satbir Singh, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Co- Chair, South Asian Right to Information Advocates Network 6. David Eaves 7. Dissanayake Dasanayaka 8. Dwight E. Hines, Ph.D 9. Ernesto Bellisario 10. Nikhil Dey 11. Petru Botnaru 12. Shankar Singh 13. Sowmya Kidambi 14. TH Schee 15. Jacques Le Roux 16. Andrei Sambra 17. Christophe Dupriez 18. Sanjana Hattotuwa 19. Morgan Marquis-Boire 20. Bouziane Zaid 21. Pehr Mårtens 22. Matthew Landauer 23. Simon Ontoyin 24. Yinglee Tseng 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Frank van Harmelen 27. Phil Coates 28. Josefina Aguilar 29. Juned Sonido 30. Fatima Cambronero 31. Jonathan Hipkiss 32. Lucie Perrault 33. Bouziane Zaid 34. Per Martens 35. Simon Ontoyin 36. Morgan Marquis-Boire 37. Leila Nachawati 38. Gbenga Sesan 39. Mohamed El Gohary 40. D.M. Dissanayake 41. Sana Saleem 42. Renata Avila Pinto 43. Carolina Rossini 44. Phil Longhurst 45. Mark Townsend 46. Badouin Schombe 47. Sarah Copeland 48. Jelena Heštera 49. Brian Leekley 50. Katrin Verclas 51. Ian David 52. Judyth Mermelstein 53. Anna Myers 54. Knut Gotfredsen 55. Daniele Pitrolo 56. Nick Herbert 57. Eliana Quiroz 58. Ion Ghergheata 59. Mark Hughes 60. Elena Tudor 61. Thomas C. Ellington 62. Susan Ariel Aaronson, Ph.D. 63. Peter Gunther 64. Mark Charles Rosenzweig 65. Panthea Lee 66. Douglas Redding 67. Mark Wilhelmi 68. C. Worth 69. Sriram Sharma 70. Ben Huser 71. Zach Ross 72. Albo P Fossa 73. Ian Tolfrey 74. Jay Campbell 75. Beth Alexander 76. Crisman Richards 77. Jorge Luis Sierra 78. Linda Strasberg 79. Mawaki Chango, Ph.D. 80. Giang Dang 81. Nica Dumlau 82. Walter Keim 83. Tur-Od Lkhagvajav 84. Dr. Mridula Ghosh 85. Anthony Barnett 86. Christian Heise 87. Eduardo Vergara Lope de la Garza 88. Neide De Sordi  

******************Happy New Year 2014******************

***********A Merry Festive Season To All In 2013***********

North Coast Voices

Wishes all our contributors and readers

A Very Merry Festive Season

2013

See you again on 1 January 2014 
When we return from our holiday break

A cry for help from the north Queensland coast

Members of the coalition government joining the queue outside the office of Christopher Pyne, Education Minister and Leader of the House, to seek remedial lessons are advised to take a ticket to ensure they maintain their place in the queue.

Another MP joining the queue is George Christensen (Liberal National), the Member for Dawson.






Other government MPs in the queue include Teresa Gambaro, Kelly O'Dwyer and Mal Brough.

Evidence of Mr Christensen's need for help is provided in his entry, dated 19 November 2013, in the register of members'  interests.

A Christmas Memo to the Far Right

It has long been an Australian right wing brag that when the Howard Government left office there was no public debt on the national books.

So it was most amusing to read Messrs Hockey (Treasurer) and Cormann’s (Finance Minister) December 2013 Mid-Year Economic And Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) document which clearly states: The total face value of CGS on issue has varied significantly over time. In level terms, the largest decrease since 1970-71 occurred between 1996-97 and 2006-07, when the face value of CGS on issue roughly halved from $111.1 billion to $53.3 billion.

Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS) are of course the mechanism by which a federal government borrows money and it seems that Howard, Costello & Co left office owing at least $53.2 billion net or $58.2 billion in total.

Journalists becoming a dwindling band

 

Australian Newspaper History Group December 2013 Newsletter:

The number of journalists and other writers in Australia fell by 16 per cent in the year to August as traditional media organisations slashed staff numbers, according to the latest jobs report by consultancy Economic and Market Development Advisors (Australian, 4 November 2013). Staff numbers in public relations also fell “as this sub-sector experienced a fairly dismal year”, the report said. The media and marketing sector employed 291,000 people in the year, including about 23,500 journalists and writers, 19,300 public relations people, 131,000 sales and marketing managers and another 51,000 sales and marketing professionals. “This sector is one that is most responsive to the state of the economy and as the economy and business confidence improves, jobs growth is anticipated to return,” the report said. The number of journalists and writers was still historically high, having risen 19 per cent over the past 15 years, said EMDA director Michael Emerson.

Over the same period, the number of PR operatives had grown 79 per cent. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance estimated that in the past 18 months 1500 journalist jobs had been cut by major media outlets and over the past six years the number of newsroom staff had halved. It estimated there were now fewer than 9000 working journalists in Australia. The union estimated that “well over” 500 jobs were cut at News Corp Australia in calendar 2012, although the company refused to comment on that figure, as well as about 400 at Fairfax Media and 100 at Ten Network.

Defending The ABC: the more things change the more things stay the same

THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE

The Australian 22 May 2013, p.2:

TONY Abbott will face growing pressure from within his party to privatise the ABC and SBS to deal with perceptions of anti-Liberal bias and to retire debt.

The Victorian Liberal Party will debate this weekend a motion calling for a review of public broadcasting in Australia with the view of either partial or total privatisation.

The party's policy-forming conference will debate the move at the same time as the Opposition Leader attends the gathering in Melbourne and prepares to fight the federal election.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday the motion came after the opposition had failed to guarantee funding for public broadcasting.

"If Malcolm Turnbull has any credibility, he should immediately rule out this extreme position and recommit the Coalition to keeping the national broadcasters in public hands," he said.

Institute of Public Affairs research fellow Julie Novak said the Liberal Party should go further than the motion and not hold a review, arguing there was enough evidence to back a sell-off. She said the transformation of digital media meant there was no need to fund a broadcaster, because of the explosion in competition.

The Liberal Party will debate whether the ABC and SBS infrastructure should be sold off as part of a Coalition government's bid to cut debt. The motion cites the fact the ABC and SBS compete with "a wide range of private media outlets" and that public ownership is counter to Coalition policy.....

DEFENDING THE ABC THEN

The Age 27 May 1970:

The Sun-Herald 31 May 1998, p60:

RICHARD Alston appears to have made little progress in his renewed effort last week to create a more docile ABC, but there is no doubt the Government and its big business supporters will keep trying.....

Not only was he busy last week telling the ABC how to rein in its producers and journalists, he also announced a crackdown on "smutty" radio and TV.

He wanted, he said, to prevent "an electronic version of Sodom and Gomorrah". This would be simply funny if presented from some pulpit in a backward country town, but coming from the man responsible for all our communications it is a bit frightening.

The Government of which Senator Alston is a leading member obviously sees itself as a kind of nanny charged with protecting Australians from too much contact with that tainted world overseas.

The deeper agenda, of course, is that the less we are exposed to naughty or subversive foreign ideas the more we will appreciate the ultra-conservative values of a wise and all-knowing Coalition......

DEFENDING THE ABC NOW

The Queensland Times 19 September 2013, p. 12:

WHEN it comes to our national broadcaster, the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), my adoration knows no bounds.

Normally not one to slavishly hero-worship any sort of entity, I'm completely besotted with our ABC.

Conceding that I'm probably in the minority of TV watchers and that commercial channels hold the lion's share of the national audience, I nevertheless spring to the advertisement-free channel's defence.

The government we elected on September 7 is known to be business-friendly.

If something doesn't make a buck then it's more than likely to be on the chopping block of any budget cuts.

Please, please, Mr Abbott (incoming prime minister), keep your funds-slashing hands off the ABC. We ABC devotees are fiercely protective of our beloved national institution.

The thought of switching to any other channel (except occasionally SBS when it's showing something other than sex scenes) is too horrible to contemplate.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 specifies the role of the ABC as a statutory authority with programming and operational independence from the government.

Trouble is, the government provides the cash that keeps the ABC on air.

In the 2013-14 Budget, the previous government handed the ABC an additional $30million over three years to meet the growing demand for its digital services.

The ABC was also allocated $69.4 million over four years from 2012-13 to expand its news and current affairs services.

If the government funding isn't tampered with for 2013-14, the ABC will collect $1.05 billion - a small price to pay.

It's estimated that an average of 13.8 million Australians watch ABC television each week.

Those individuals, like the Friends of the ABC, expect to listen to a media organisation that's free of government influence, commercial sponsorship and advertising.

Let's keep it that way.

Crikey 27 November, 2013:

Twitter 11 December 2013:

The Guardian 21 December 2013:

For weeks News Corp papers have been running a barrage of opinion pieces, often several on a single day, alleging a lack of diversity in the opinions available at the ABC.

The generally agreed thesis advanced by these opinion writers – most of whom live in Sydney and Melbourne – is that too many ABC opinion-makers live in Sydney and Melbourne, and that this contributes to their “green-left” worldview.

This “green-left” worldview, News Corp writers contend, contributes to “biased” reporting and political interviewing on the ABC and infuses its wider programming as well, including – according to Piers Akerman at least – the “weird feminism” evident in Peppa Pig and the “left sludge” he hears when he tunes in the Triple J. (Does Akerman really tune into Triple J?)

Bias is, by definition, in the eye of the beholder, but to my eye it’s more evident when I tune in to, say, Ray Hadley and hear him ask “questions” like this one during a conversation with prime minister Tony Abbott about how to handle the Palmer United party when the new Senate sits from next July:

“... and you’re going to have to be even better than you were at the beginning of the election. You won’t be taking my advice and saying listen Clive, stick it up your jumper. You’ll have to be even more diplomatic than you were in Indonesia.”

Or this one, in a television interview with Abbott by Andrew Bolt:

The attacks on you are astonishing. Have they forced you to change your media strategy, which until a week or two ago was to say little and let your deeds speak for themselves?”

The ABC’s critics argue that the public broadcaster has a particular responsibility to show even-handedness because it is funded by the taxpayer, and the ABC agrees.

In his recent address to the national press club, ABC chairman Jim Spigelman responded to the allegations of editorial bias with a new system of external audits, starting with an analysis of the impartiality of all radio interviews with the-then prime minister and opposition leader during the 2013 election campaign.

“I do not accept that [bias] is systematic, but I do accept that it sometimes occurs,” he said, noting the complaints were usually about programs that represented less than 1% of the corporation’s program hours, but which “happen … to interest the political class most”.

You’d think the ABC’s critics would have been pleased with this response to their complaints, but if you thought that, you’d be misunderstanding the real reason for their attacks....

In other words, as the ABC sought to address the criticisms about bias, the underlying concerns of its critics became more transparent – that the ABC is a taxpayer-funded competitor to their own commercial activities in an increasingly difficult media market, and that over time this could mean the ABC gains influence as they lose it....

I’m happy to pay my 10 cents a day for so much of what the ABC does,...... 

FROM THE TRENCHES........

The Sydney Morning Herald 15 December 2013:

It's a grim Christmas here in the ABC trenches. Ordnance whistles overhead, and the whine of the air-raid sirens has become a normal feature of daily life.

One minute it's Miranda Devine strafing Behind The News. The next, it's a devastating artillery assault centring on the fact that Kerry O'Brien was paid - PAID! - to do his interviews with Paul Keating.

And our wartime ears are already normalising The Australian's loud editorials fulminating about the evils of subsidised broadcasters. (In The Australian's defence, these editorials need to be loud. Otherwise, how could they be heard over the terrible cries of the hacks from the News tabloids, toiling below decks to generate sufficient cash for their unprofitable national sibling to keep a small band of readers relentlessly apprised of the ABC's failings?)

But on Friday, News Corp's Piers Akerman opened up a radical new front. He got The Pig involved.

The column started as a perfectly ordinary light-to-medium ABC-gumming on the usual theme of organisational leftist propaganda and generalised wickedness. But then, this: "Even the cartoon character Peppa Pig pushes a weird feminist line that would be closer to the hearts of Labor's Handbag Hit Squad than the preschool audience it is aimed at."

This is a serious allegation. Of all the programs watched on the ABC's iView platform, Peppa Pig is the most popular by a long straw. Between January and November this year, the show was watched 25 million times. That is correct, 25 million times; impressive, even when you factor in the possibility that several million of those might have been Mr Akerman, monitoring the cartoon piglet round the clock for signs of latent man-hate.....

If Liberal-Nationals wingnuts would stop baying for ABC blood long enough to think, they might realize that this email (below) clearly demonstrates that no government of the day is immune from paranoia about our national broadcaster and its journalists and that political parties across the spectrum are capable of reacting badly to perceived public criticism.

So they need stop blaming the national broadcaster for their own collective inability to face legitimate questioning concerning political decisions.

@Simon_Cullen