Call for calm over data retention talks

 

Internet industry and Government describe "OzLog" as "old news".

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has revealed that the Attorney General's Department has been discussing the possibility of data disclosure laws with Australia's ISPs for eleven years.

On Friday, ZDnet reported that the Australian Government seeks to introduce data retention laws similar to those enforced by a limited number of countries within the EU.

The Attorney General and Internet Industry Association have since confirmed that the topic of data retention laws have been a topic of discussion for eleven years, but that parties to the talks have been under non-disclosure agreement.

"The Attorney-General's Department is consulting broadly with industry in relation to the continuing availability of telecommunications data for law enforcement and national security purposes," a spokesman for the department said in a statement.

"These consultations have involved identifying the parties to a communication, where and when that communication is made and the communication's duration. It does not include the content of a communication such as people's conversations or contents of an internet banking session for example."

IIA chief Peter Coroneos said participants in the talks were bound by confidentiality agreements "as matters of national security" were discussed.

"Any document we were provided was subject to that confidentiality agreement. We are not at liberty to talk about anything but our general position on these issues," he said.

"But I wouldn't even call [the data disclosure law issue] a proposal," he added. "The department merely raised it as a topic of discussion."

A spokesman for The Attorney General's department told iTnews that the non-disclosure agreements signed as part of the discussions were "not unusual."

"When you are consulting with industry on matters relating to national security, all papers are marked 'in-confidence'," the spokesman said.

Any documents produced to date would be subject to change before a formal proposal was put forward. And in any case, any proposed data retention law - should one come into serious consideration - would have to made public by default. It would be need to be passed in parliament.

Guiding principles

In any case, both parties have today released information as to their position on data disclosure laws.

Coroneos told iTnews that the IIA won't be buying any conspiracy theories, and that the organisation understands the "Government's objective of having effective and accountable processes in place to address criminal activity.

"The internet industry has a track record of providing reasonable assistance to law enforcement agencies as required by law. Many successful prosecutions would not have been possible without the assistance of the internet sector in accordance with laws," the association said in a statement released this afternoon.

The IIA has raised general concerns about a "blanket data retention regime" with the Government since 1999, citing the need to balance national security needs with:

  • privacy (the legitimate privacy expectations of users who interact online assuming that their communications are private and browsing activity are private, unless they have been clearly informed otherwise or otherwise agree);
  • proportionality (whether the harm being addressed is outweighed by the economic or social burden or privacy intrusiveness of the measures proposed);
  • security of data held (including by whom it is held, in what circumstances this data may be accessed and the scope for its misuse);
  • cost (including the upfront and ongoing costs of compliance); 
  • efficacy (the demonstrated need for such a policy and whether a policy will deliver on its stated objective); and
  • transparency (whether the policy is understood by users to be a mandatory government requirement).

The IIA said it hoped a "full and open public consultation process" would be "undertaken before any policy is concluded."

The Attorney General's department said that the "Government has not as yet made any decision in relation to a data retention regime.

"However, any arrangement will strike the appropriate balance between individual privacy, commercial imperatives and community expectations that unlawful behaviour is investigated and prosecuted."


Call for calm over data retention talks
"It discussions have been going on for 11 years then at least 2 things are obvious: 1) The process is NOT open and transparent. (we would have heard about it by now) 2) The Libs were in power then, ..."
By Pilotyoda
 
 
 
Comments: 18
bengrubb
Jun 16, 2010 11:00 PM
"But I wouldn't even call [the data disclosure law issue] a proposal," he added. "The department merely raised it as a topic of discussion."

Perhaps the IIA wasn't at a formal briefing held with certain members of the telco industry in March this year.

That briefing saw documents given out proposing what data sets the government wanted ISPs to retain.
Dan541
Jun 16, 2010 11:23 PM
So the government requires non-disclosure agreements!
Makes you wonder what else they are hiding.
hellfire
Jun 17, 2010 7:51 AM
So Krudd, CONROY and Co are well on the way to making Australia a COMMUNIST STATE where the citizen has no personal privacy. This comes as no great surprise.
peterhau
Jun 17, 2010 9:19 AM
did the libs have this policy prior to the ALP? if the telcos have been in discussions for the past 11 years, was it with the opposition at the time or the government at the time? I don't agree with data retention, not only for the privacy issues, but also with the mammoth storage requirement that this policy would require. the money spent on the storage requirement could well be used for other key areas of interest - health, welfare, the NBN, and innovation in the SME sector - keeping jobs here.
BrettWinterford
Jun 17, 2010 9:20 AM
@ bengrubb - who are these telcos? Without naming them we don't have much to work with. :)
anonymous
Jun 17, 2010 10:43 AM

Your question is understandable, Brett, but given the attitude of Conboy & Co to anybody who disagrees with them, it may not be reasonable to expect companies to become exposed to political retribution by identifying themselves.
CMOTDibbler
Jun 17, 2010 11:33 AM
11 years eh? Started well before 9/11 then.
Ace
Jun 17, 2010 1:29 PM
According to SMH, "Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, criticised the government for not being transparent and open with the public about its intentions. Coroneos said he was forbidden by confidentiality agreements from discussing any details of draft proposals he has been provided.". So IIA do in fact have draft proposals Brett.
bengrubb
Jun 17, 2010 3:03 PM
@BrettWinterford Some have been named in article from yesterday.
BrettWinterford
Jun 17, 2010 3:39 PM
@Ace - that isn't a direct quote, that is a journalist at the SMH doing what we call "editorialising". I don't believe Peter would have use the word "proposal" after telling us explicitly that there was no "proposal". I have little doubt 'something' was discussed, whether its a "proposal" or a "topic of discussion" is talking semantics unless a journo has the documents in their hand. But whether it was ready for public comment is something else entirely. We have to keep this in perspective - until a formal proposal is circulated, or a law drafted, we're in "storm in a teacup" land here. Eventually such a proposal would have to be made public - it would need to be passed into law and face the full scrutiny of the press, the opposition, and iTnews readers!
BrettWinterford
Jun 17, 2010 3:45 PM
@ bengrubb - who are these ISPs quoted? You've only quoted 'sources'. If these sources are so concerned, why are they hiding behind anonymity? I don't see "fear of Government repercussions" as being an acceptable answer, unless you're easily distracted by conspiracy theories.
btone
Jun 17, 2010 3:50 PM
Oh well thats all right then Coroneos, as long as you are covered by the good old confidentiality agreement you can happily go ahead and discuss any old egregious assaults on your customers privacy. The isps don't get it do they. Snow attempts like this only increase the sense of discomfort. You turkeys have control over our private information. You are discussing allowing your employees (where are their security clearances by the way) and the government blanket access to it. Its the PROCESS as much as the OUTCOME sonny. What right do you have to be SECRETLY discussing this with the government without TELLING YOUR CUSTOMERS! You are commercial companies not some bloody cell of ASIO and the AFP. We don't want the intimate details, we want companies who WE PAY to have the decency to tell us what they are doing under the covers.

ps: If this has been going on for 11 years and all the isps knew it where has Linton been, under a rock?

Sorry but something smells, real bad...
anonymous
Jun 17, 2010 6:05 PM

Brett, it's a bit surprising that you dismiss the known fact of political retaliation by the govt as not significant in leading to companies feeling they have to be "hiding behind anonymity".

If you were running a company that was subject to the pleasure of the govt to either get business, or get no govt business, you may have a better understanding of current political realities.
BrettWinterford
Jun 17, 2010 11:16 PM
Bear with me here @anonymous. If iiNet's Michael Malone, for example, is willing to come right out and call Senator Conroy "a liar" over the filter proposal, would he really cower in a corner over a discussion paper on data retention laws? I am not speaking in support of whatever was discussed or "proposed" as others have jumped to suggest. But the fact no ISP spoke up for 11 years suggests to me that they haven't seen any proposal worth getting alarmed about just yet. I say we train our fire on the real issues on the table today. ACTA, the filter, etc.
anonymous
Jun 18, 2010 11:32 AM

Brett, you've convinced me and we are now in furious agreement ;-)
BrettWinterford
Jun 18, 2010 12:52 PM
@ anonymous - about time, it's usually the other way around!
anonymous
Jun 18, 2010 4:06 PM

Never!
Pilotyoda
Jun 19, 2010 11:14 AM
It discussions have been going on for 11 years then at least 2 things are obvious:
1) The process is NOT open and transparent. (we would have heard about it by now)
2) The Libs were in power then, which means Tony Abbott and/or his cronies were involved for 8 years and thus he cannot be trusted to vote against the current Labor govt (or repeal such laws if he gets in). His personal politics are such that he would relish using the proposed new laws.

Experience shows us that NO government can be trusted to put in place comprehensive and watertight protections against misuse of this information and NO government is immune to allowing "creep" of quantity, scope and applications to which such data collection may be used.

As for ISP's; we can expect they would be penalised in some way for lack of co-operation with the government so no protections there.

Makes China's internet policies look pretty good now, doesn't it!
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Allianz taps finance IT overhauls for Cobol skills
Insurer commits to legacy investments.
 
NSW Government signs mega data centre deal
iTnews gets the skinny on the IT deal of the year.
 
Illawarra Coal plants fibre optics in Hume Highway
BHP subsidiary monitors impact of longwall mining on road.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  18%
 
No
  82%
TOTAL VOTES: 372

Vote