Cybercrime treaty may violate Privacy Act: EFA

 

Mandatory data retention fears persist.

Australia’s privacy legislation may be at odds with Government plans to accede to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has warned.

Responding to the Attorney-General’s call for submissions on the plan this month, EFA chair Colin Jacobs highlighted eroding privacy protections and a broadening of law enforcement powers as concerns.

The civil liberties group was particularly concerned with Article 16 of the Convention, which required member countries to preserve and maintain “specified computer data, including traffic data”, for up to 90 days.

According to Government documents (pdf), Australia considered addressing Article 16 by amending the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act to create an “explicit preservation regime”.

Jacobs warned that such a regime would “have a corrosive effect on Australians’ faith and trust in government”, and might put sensitive data at risk of being exposed accidentally or maliciously.

The data retention provisions might also pave the way for the more invasive EU data retention directive 2006/24, which required service providers to retain telephone, email, and web traffic logs for up to two years.

“We know that the Government is looking to go down that route,” Jacobs told iTnews, noting that the directive had attracted criticism from human rights and civil liberties groups worldwide.

“We believe the Convention would have significant privacy impacts, including some that directly conflict with Australian National Privacy Principles.”

EFA raised concerns that the 2004 Cybercrime Convention went “far beyond” what was required to combat cybercrime.

Jacobs warned that accession would make Australian residents “far too vulnerable to investigation by or at the behest of foreign agencies”; echoing former EFA spokesman Geordie Guy’s warning that was an “advance party for the ACTA [copyright] treaty”.

“Some of the substantive offences listed are vague or problematic, including the misuse if devices, criminalisation of copyright and corporate liability provisions,” the EFA submitted.

Pirate Party Australia also opposed acceding to the treaty in a separate submission to the Attorney-General's consultation, arguing that there were "serious flaws" in the Convention.

While the party agreed that international law enforcement organisations needed a coordinated approach to tackle cybercrime, it warned against "[throwing] fundamental freedoms and respect for individual rights and democratic institutions to the wind".

Party secretary Rodney Serkowski described the Cybercrime Convention, which currently involved some 47 nations, as a "fundamentally imbalanced" law enforcement "wish list".

He questioned Article 25 of the Convention, which would require Australia to aid other countries in enforcing their laws whether or not those laws existed in Australia also.

The Party favoured a cybercrime treaty proposal that was discussed and ultimately rejected at the United Nations' Crime Congress in Brazil last April.

Russia, China and a number of developing countries could not reach agreement with the EU and US, which argued that a new treaty was not needed with the European Convention in place.

"This [European] treaty does not contain within the minimum protections necessary to ensure an adequate global standard," Serkowski wrote in the Party's submission.

"We continue to advocate a more inclusive, adequately balanced approach through the UN that balances the requirements of law enforcement agencies and civil liberties."

The Attorney-General’s Department reported having received 20 submissions when its call for submissions closed on 14 March. The deadline was extended to close of business on Wednesday for “a few organisations”.

A departmental spokesman said submissions were received “from a broad range of the community”, and would be discussed before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

The Standing Committee invited public submissions until 21 March.

Updated at 9.14am, 21 March, to include the Pirate Party's submission.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Cybercrime treaty may violate Privacy Act: EFA
"Come to think of it these new data retention proposals dont sound that bad. But I propose we bring other parts of life into line with it. 1. Everything you watch on tv or listen to on a radio ..."
By HubertCumberdale
 
 
 
Comments: 3
Maxxi2
Mar 21, 2011 9:03 AM
It is interesting when a Colin Jakobs is all of a sudden an expert in fighting cyber-crime, when he has never done it, it is growing exponentially and he nas zero workable alternatives...

Privacy is a critical issue, however maintaining online anonymity or preventing people being identified for what they do online is neither an enshrined human right, nor some constitutional right, nor helpful for a healthy growth of online activity.

If Colin tabled some proven and viable alternatives to identify and locate illegal online activities and their perpetrators, not just theories of how other people could perhaps educate folks not to be nasty online, then that would be worth looking at.

As lomg as online anonymity can be so easily exploited to commit online crime, authorities will have no choie but to use counter-measures to identify and locate the perps, and some of these will clash with the wishes of the online privacy groups.

Whilst the EFA is humungously worried that online prvacy may be breached, tens of thousands of peoples rights, well-being, property and commerce are actually damaged every day by online crime.

And 99% of it because the perps can remain anonymous or are not trackable...
BigAussie
Mar 21, 2011 9:47 AM
@Maxxi2 -- the online world is no different to the offline world. There will always be those who feel others have more than they do, and want to help them share.

Offline we use locks, gates, fences and large barriers with cameras to detect possible criminal offences.

Users of the online world should learn to protect themselves in a similar way. Firewalls, Anti-Virus, Anti-malware scanners, intrusion detection, and more if the pot of gold is worth protecting.

Why should the "authorities" be given any more power online than offline. There are more than sufficient powers already in the hands of our police and others who are there to aid in "protecting" us.

The general population (and our politicians) needs to be educated in how to protect themselves while online. Wearing a seatbelt while driving is mandatory in Australia; perhaps so should using a quality anti-virus and malware scanner.

I realise these things do not stop online predators; but they will always go where the security is the weakest; or where the reward is greatest.

If you have a big asset online -- protect it. Don't expect others to look after your business for you.

How many of these "tens of thousands of peoples rights, well-being, property and commerce...." are being properly protected by their own doing. I have no stats handy, but I would guess less than 10%. Much the same as less than 10% of small businesses in Australia are even using a basic UPS to protect against power spikes.

We have to learn (even the hard way) that you need to take responsibilty for yourself while online.


HubertCumberdale
Mar 21, 2011 1:06 PM
Come to think of it these new data retention proposals dont sound that bad.

But I propose we bring other parts of life into line with it.

1. Everything you watch on tv or listen to on a radio needs to be logged.

2. Everything you buy in a shop needs to be logged.

3. Cars belonging to businesses or individuals need to be tracked all GPS data needs to be retained.

4. 24/7 voice recorders for police and politicians. This can later be extended to individuals.


So what it sounds a bit extreme but I thought the goal was to prevent 100% of crimes committed and you have to admit my proposals will prevent far more crimes than the data retention proposal.


Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
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
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 510

Vote