Australia: Pretty much everyone who wants access to metadata gets it
23 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/access-to-private-internet-phone-use-up-by-9-per-cent--without-warrants-20151204-glfgg0.html"]SOURCE
[/URL][QUOTE]Two city councils in Melbourne and Sydney are increasingly spying on residents by finding out who they are calling and emailing.
Knox City Council in Melbourne's east is the worst offender, followed by Bankstown Council in Sydney's west.
Knox made 15 "metadata" requests in the year ended June 2015, up from just five in the previous year, according to a [URL="http://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/TelecommunicationsSurveillance/Documents/Telecommunications-Interception-and-Access-Act-1979-Annual-Report-14-15.pdf"]federal government report[/URL].
The metadata may include phone numbers of people who called each other and how long they talked to each other, or email addresses and what times messages were sent. Access to it does not require a warrant.
Sometimes a request might simply be for who the owner of a certain phone number is and what their address is.
Bankstown was granted access to residents' metadata on 13 occasions, up from seven in the previous period.
Queensland's Ipswich City Council, which made 21 requests in 2013-14, has cut down on spying. It made just three metadata access requests in the year.
Melbourne's Darebin and Wyndham councils made one request each in 2013-14, but did not request any metadata this year.
However the number of requests by councils remains relatively steady overall, at 32 this year compared to 35 previously.
[B]Other government agencies accessing citizens' private communication records include Australia Post, which made 625 requests in the period, down from 810. Various racing authorities, the RSPCA and the Tax Office are among other agencies that dip into metadata year after year.[/B]
A spokesperson for Australia Post said it requests phone records from telcos to chase people who steal phones or SIM cards from its stores, or to pursue people who make "serious threats" to staff or engage in corruption and fraud.[/QUOTE]
Glad to see the Australian Government wants everyone to be the NSA.
Disgusting.
I personally didn't mind it too much when ASIO and the Signals Directorate were doing it illegally because then they'd only pull the information out during the worst but this is far too blasé.
time to finally get a VPN I think
Given the huge criminal presence on Bankstown I am not surprised.
[QUOTE=Eonart;49257561][URL="https://www.expressvpn.com?referrer_id=9121333&utm_campaign=referrals&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=referral_dashboard"]Here's a referral link to the one I use, ExpressVPN, that grants you a 30 day trial.[/URL] It's pretty good, as long as I stay connected to Australian servers, the difference between having it on or off is rarely noticeable.[/QUOTE]
Just a word of the wise that using any VPN could be a pretty bad idea as they are especially geared towards providing a way around censorship and/or providing some level of anonymity.
You're probably a lot better off using a VPS (check out lowendbox.com)
At least there is now some amount of oversight by an ombudsman since the introduction of the mandatory metadata retention. It also clarified that the data can only be accessed by criminal-law enforcing agencies, and cannot be used to sue you (say for copyright infringement).
(still, not that I think the requirement of metadata being stored is a good thing, especially when you consider how prevalent requests were before the requirement was made this year)
[QUOTE=DogGunn;49257766]At least there is now some amount of oversight by an ombudsman since the introduction of the mandatory metadata retention. It also clarified that the data can only be accessed by criminal-law enforcing agencies, and cannot be used to sue you (say for copyright infringement).
(still, not that I think the requirement of metadata being stored is a good thing, especially when you consider how prevalent requests were before the requirement was made this year)[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that a lot of the smaller ISPs are out of a tonne of money over this.
I follow an Australian network operator mailing list and a lot of them were promised money by the government to help them implement the hardware needed for this stuff.
A lot of them haven't seen a single dollar yet.
How do councils have the right to do this? They aren't even government. Also. RSPCA aren't Government. Unless we are ruled by family pets.
[QUOTE=Passing;49257854]How do councils have the right to do this? They aren't even government. Also. RSPCA aren't Government. Unless we are ruled by family pets.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure councils are local government
[QUOTE=Eonart;49257561][URL="https://www.expressvpn.com?referrer_id=9121333&utm_campaign=referrals&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=referral_dashboard"]Here's a referral link to the one I use, ExpressVPN, that grants you a 30 day trial.[/URL] It's pretty good, as long as I stay connected to Australian servers, the difference between having it on or off is rarely noticeable.[/QUOTE]
Pretty soon were going to have the UK's "you guys shouldnt be able to encrypt shit" laws start popping up because of how widespread encrypted VPN's are getting.
Though I dont really know what the government expected to happen, if I was doing some illegal shit online hell i'd use an encrypted VPN/"I'm behind 7 proxy's" even without the data retention act, anyone with half a brain could tell that keeping metadata wouldn't do shit (Other counties have trialed it any shown that), makes you wonder if the whole data retention shit is for another purpose...
[QUOTE=-n3o-;49257872]I'm pretty sure councils are local government[/QUOTE]
You know for a country that has only two levels of government. I don't really see how. I mean they may claim to be but that simply isn't true.
In the 1990's there was a referendum that failed to turn them into the third level of government, so.. around this time another plan was brought into action and this begun to change phone books and other information that they were the third level of government when in reality they aren't.
[QUOTE=Passing;49257937]You know for a country that has only two levels of government. I don't really see how. I mean they may claim to be but that simply isn't true.
In the 1990's there was a referendum that failed to turn them into the third level of government, so.. around this time another plan was brought into action and this begun to change phone books and other information that they were the third level of government when in reality they aren't.[/QUOTE]
They are definitely local government. I'm pretty sure every State recognises them in their Constitution. I know Victoria's does. Furthermore, they are elected, accountable and administered under the [URL="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/"]Local Government Act[/URL]. To say they are not local government because of a failed Commonwealth referendum (which was purely designed to take power away from the States) is incorrect.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
They can also make laws that you must follow, so I wouldn't be relying on the idea that they're not government.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;49258241]They are definitely local government. I'm pretty sure every State recognises them in their Constitution. I know Victoria's does. Furthermore, they are elected, accountable and administered under the [URL="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/"]Local Government Act[/URL]. To say they are not local government because of a failed Commonwealth referendum (which was purely designed to take power away from the States) is incorrect.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
They can also make laws that you must follow, so I wouldn't be relying on the idea that they're not government.[/QUOTE]
Local governments can't make laws (a law can only be passed by a lawgiver based on the powers of a constitution). Local governments can pass ordnances and similar which are based on powers granted by laws.
Different levels. Still binding obviously, but more limiting.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49258628]Local governments can't make laws (a law can only be passed by a lawgiver based on the powers of a constitution). Local governments can pass ordnances and similar which are based on powers granted by laws.
Different levels. Still binding obviously, but more limiting.[/QUOTE]
By-laws are a joke though.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49260183]By-laws are a joke though.[/QUOTE]
By-laws generally are even lower than ordnances. Essentially you get 3-4 levels of legals
a) top level - constitutional, defines what can pass laws, what they can't pass as laws and similar stuff (mind you can be more than a single document)
b) laws - passed by the group defined in the constitution and potentially about everything that's not contrary to the top level
c) secondary legislation - stuff that's released on the basis of a law. Local government work based on that, ministries and the like
d) only internally binding.
confused is this good or bad is fo why,.?
Honestly, if it was literally open information, I would have less of a problem with it.
does anyone know how to request the metadata?, im actually curious to see mine
[QUOTE=gamefighterx;49261370]does anyone know how to request the metadata?, im actually curious to see mine[/QUOTE]
You can't do that, Not even law enforcement can do that easily without issues. Yet strangely enough RSPA can.
[QUOTE]Queensland's Ipswich City Council, which made 21 requests in 2013-14, has cut down on spying. It made just three metadata access requests in the year.
[/QUOTE]
This doesn't surprise me, I reckon council has interest in spying on its political opponents and the state government as well along with certain Ipswich MPs
Pretty gross but got to keep the legacy going
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49258628]Local governments can't make laws (a law can only be passed by a lawgiver based on the powers of a constitution). Local governments can pass ordnances and similar which are based on powers granted by laws.
Different levels. Still binding obviously, but more limiting.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your point is?
Local governments in Australia can make laws. Some states call them by-laws. Other states call them local laws. The remainder don't even bother labelling them, and just call them laws.
Each local government has a Constitution which is established both by itself and by the State Government. Those Constitutions (both codified and from common law) establish what laws can be made by them and what cannot.
They are laws. It's as simple as that.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=gamefighterx;49261370]does anyone know how to request the metadata?, im actually curious to see mine[/QUOTE]
I think you have a misunderstanding of what the metadata contains. It's not like a file.
[editline]7th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49260415]By-laws generally are even lower than ordnances. Essentially you get 3-4 levels of legals
a) top level - constitutional, defines what can pass laws, what they can't pass as laws and similar stuff (mind you can be more than a single document)
b) laws - passed by the group defined in the constitution and potentially about everything that's not contrary to the top level
c) secondary legislation - stuff that's released on the basis of a law. Local government work based on that, ministries and the like
d) only internally binding.[/QUOTE]
That's simply incorrect for Australia. You need to understand that we are a federal union. There are multiple levels of government each with different amounts of power.
What a great time to learn all about encryption for an australian.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.