I like how under the guise of protecting us from terrorism they're now protecting us from the most evil of evil crimes. There was a mild outrage about 5 years ago in the UK when a few councils were caught using RIPA laws (what GCHQ is currently claiming to be protected by) for all sorts of fun things. Like dog poop [1], ice lolly bribes [2] and so on. I feel 100% safer knowing that surveillance is used to tackle all these huge crimes.
Add to that UK police using terrorist powers to harass... sorry, stop and search kids who dare to be out in public. Oh, I also believe the police can use the terror excuse to search homes with out a proper warrant. Most people who are treated like this don't even know why. They just get quoted the act section number. Something like, "we are searching you / your home under section xyz." No mention of the terror laws.
This is exactly why we should be very careful about giving sweeping powers to authorities under the guise of "terror".
The UK did away with S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 precisely because there was backlash against the mass use of groundless searches.
What was especially galling is that the UK has pretty broad search powers anyway based on reasonable suspicion, so anyone choosing a S44 search was basically admitting they didn't expect to find anything.
I fully agree with the dog poop. I don't care what measures the authorities take to hunt down and hopefully exterminate owners that leave dog shit all over the place. Utterly abhorrent, selfish, irresponsible and dangerous. These owners are a menace.
There is an upcoming referendum in Australia which seeks to take this level of government into the budget allocation process of the federal system. If this happens, all functions of local government have the characteristic of affecting federal taxing powers.
Therefore all actions and provisions by local government will have a characteristic that provides the authority to access metadata for all citizens on the single signature of the enquirers supervisor. The enquirer can be any paid employee of the council who has a working title.
Any license, fee, ambiguity on any bylaw compliance, planning decision and so on can, because it has a fiduciary component, lead to a legally performed metadata query on any citizen.
And the citizenry I have met are, I am afraid, oblivious to these matters.
As I've alluded to, the element of this that pertains to privacy is the incorporation into the Australian Constitution of Council fiduciary compliance. It has been law since 2007 in Australia that in any question impacting the federal taxing power authority conferred by the constitution, such queries can be made as a matter if course, as long as permission is obtained from a single signing supervisor.
I apologise because I'm probably missing something, but I don't understand how the amendment affects the gathering of metadata in any way.
The explanatory memorandum seems to make it pretty clear that the Commonwealth isn't going to rely on the amendment to interfere with local bodies and I think reliance on a council worker's signature as authority to gather data for the Commonwealth would almost absolutely be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine anyway.
Our government can already arguably take what they want anyway under ss51(vi) or (xxix), so I don't really see why an ulterior motive for this is necessary anyway.
Also, I was under the impression that the funding would be grants, so I don't get why you're saying fiduciary relationships are involved here.
I haven't studied constitutional law for a couple of years now so I'm probably behind on bits and pieces, but I'm not getting any warning signs from this referendum at all. It just seems like it's an attempt to cut down on bureaucracy.
(IANAL by the way. Or an exceptionally good law student, so I'm sorry if I've misunderstood everything here)
Can you put some of that in plain English, and provide some references please?
It has been law since 2007 in Australia that in any question impacting the federal taxing power authority conferred by the constitution, such queries can be made as a matter if course, as long as permission is obtained from a single signing supervisor.
What exactly does "federal taxing power authority" mean, and under what possible interpretation does that mean that a body funded by the federal government suddenly gets the power to subpoena phone records and tap email?
There are plenty of other federally funded bodies at (AFAIK) don't have that power. Or maybe I'm wrong, and agencies like Screen Australia actually can do that?
(Not that I support this referendum, but that's for different reasons)
Protection of the public revenue is the clause in the telecommunications act 1997 that the Australian Tax Office and Job Centre investigators often rely on. Access to metadata does not require a warrant. In some cases, telcos can provide information to allowed agencies even without certification.
I'm fairly convinced that local governments will be motivated to protect their own revenue with methods that are specifically designed to protect the public revenue. Already we are seeing some councils using these methods. The number of accesses must be reported, and these reports form the basis of recent news stories on this subject. It remains to be seen whether there are any real constraints on the volume of queries when and if local governments are directly funded by the federal government.
By federal taxing powers I mean what is generally described in [1]
There is history in the relationship between the Federal and local governments. Reference the Whitlam governments attempt at bringing local government under federal control, which failed, and the Fraser government etc [2]
The COAG meetings provide the mechanism for state funding, through which local councils currently are funded. There is one local government representative present at COAG meetings [3][4]
Part 13 of the Telecommunications Act and access to metadata.[5].
The amendments relevant to warrants for access to content of stored electronic communications and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 2006 are in [6]
I still don't really get what you're trying to say. Mentioning that a power is contained within a clause of the Telecommunications Act doesn't really mean much. All 594 subsections need to be read in conjunction with each other before an accurate interpretation can be made. I've had a quick read through and I can't really see how a broad enough construal of Part 13 is possible for anything you're saying to happen. It's going to turn on whether the government believes whether the High Court will interpret what you're describing as 'reasonable' even though the Act repeatedly emphasises that confidentiality should be paramount. We've got some silly people in power but they're not that dumb.
I do not understand how councils are not already part of the 'public revenue', maybe there is case law on this that I am unaware of?
The explanatory memorandum attached to the referendum explicitly states that the Federal government will have no legal influence over local councils. It also mentions that the referendum is for no other purpose than to grant the council money. As soon as any evidence of what you've described crops up they're going to get their asses handed to them in court as they're acting against their own explicit intention. I can't see the loophole you do at all.
I've spent the last 25 minutes or so going through the Telecommunications Act and it is an absolute shambles when read in context. As I said in another post, there are far simpler ways for the Commonwealth to claim a legal right to monitor us.
If the Australian government wanted to monitor our metadata, or conduct any other sort of surveillance for that matter, they'd probably just do it and then claim external affairs once they're caught. It's far simpler and more effective than to try to engineer a legal loophole like you're describing. It's cynical and it sucks but that's the way these things tend to go.
Councils already access metadata in accordance with the Telecommunications Act.[1]
I provided the links to the amended Telecommunications ( Interception ) Act 2006 as it describes the warrant system required for stored data or content. Not data in transit.
Those agencies that have a more direct linkage to federal funding, for example, the ATO on the input side, and Social Security, for example, Jobcentres on the output side, are those bodies that probe metadata the most it would appear, under the provisions in the Act regarding defrauding the public finances without suspicion of criminality or otherwise, though such a suspicion is in itself also a justification.
While the funding provided to local councils via the states is also public funding, direct funding by the Commonwealth has as its aim efficiency of course, but also control and competitive negotiation between councils. The single representative present at the COAG meetings can only be partly effective at representation given the competition between the states. One size doesn't fit all, and there is a case to be made for greater efficiencies by having direct negotiation with the Commonwealth, and for greater formalisation over things like standards of delivery and varieties of services.
With these advantages also comes responsibility, in things like reporting and budget control. Just as happens with the states that have an interest in maximising funding, and where effectively punitive financial penalties are extracted in future COGM rounds because of either malperformance or political difference, I contend that the pressure upon councils to protect their funding will only increase, as it has with the states, which face competitive constraints. Some will win and some will lose, but maintaining maximum levels is something that we expect in any case.
This is a significant constitutional change I think. Local councils, when directly accountable to the Commonwealth, and as providers of services financed from general Commonwealth revenue, will I think behave more broadly alike in their attitude to income and expenditure, and use the methods already allowed them, and already employed by certain other councils. The linkage between council revenues and the revenues considered exactly in the Telecommunications Act are more direct perceptually.
I think Australians should be cautious about this, and so do some of Australia's politicians as well. [2]
And while Snowden and Manning had security clearances and Official Secrets Laws holding them accountable for mis-using the data they had access too, I wonder if anyone's even asking who at the local council level has access to this sort of data, and what policies/procedures/systems/agreements/accountability is in place here? Who wants to bet there's nothing stopping the local dog catcher or garbage collection manager from requesting whatever they can plausably justify - then downloading it onto a usb drive and walking out of the office with it?
I'm calling BS on this. To me it looks like the council sees an illegally posted advertisement with a phone number on it, then seeks the name and address of the owner of that phone number.
It looks like the journalist is then reaching to connect this with that new "metadata" word they've been hearing so much about.
>“Retrieving a telephone subscriber’s name and address for an investigation into an offence is an important tool," she said.
That was the reply from the spokeswoman and the article provides no accusations of any further "data interception" behavior.
If I didn't know better, I'd say this article is trying to characterize caller id/the phonebook as "intercepting data",
sure, it's technically accurate, but the words "caller id" are a lot less scary.
I remember a friend was up in arms a couple years ago about their phone number being exposed on Facebook. When I pointed out that's exactly what the phone book had done for decades, he suddenly didn't care much.
Absolutely. The only way any authority should ever be able to wiretap or get phone / internet records is with a warrant signed by a judge because there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime.
Even then this should only be available for law enforcement, not local fucking councils!
The article is really unclear, but to me it sounds like they were doing reverse phone lookups.
Illegal advertising - get the details of the number on the poster.
Unregistered pets - maybe they have an 'if found please call ...' tag on the pet, but no pet registration.
People dumping stuff illegally - if you were dumping general household/office waste, you'd probably have letters or bills with your address on it already, but I can think of scenarios where they might only have your email address to go on.
The reasons why they're seeking the numbers are law enforcement reasons. Dumping rubbish and having unregistered pets violate by-laws.
Wiretaps (ie: obtaining content) do require a warrant, and in the state of Victoria, where this is, half of all such applications for warrants are rejected by the magistrate. Getting the name and address of the owner of a phone number is a humdrum law enforcement issue, and really councils should have that power. Getting the list of calls made or where emails have been sent is a more serious violation of privacy (instead of "who owns this?" it's "what do they do with it?"), and I imagine that there's simply a legal loophole there.
The article has an amazing lack of detail and follow-through.
Whilst I fully support local councils generally - I've seen how ruinous centralized decision-making can be for small/remote communities - there are indeed far too many local councils which seem overrun either by incompetents who are easily exploited, or worse: petty, corrupt, back-stabbing psychopaths who abuse process against people and small businesses with competing interests.
Even if we pretend for 10ms that surveillance is even remotely justifiable and is the only option to deal with pet ownership and littering (!), I am immediately concerned about what accountability and oversight measures are or aren't in place. Local councils are already notoriously rife with corruption, incompetence and abuse of process - that it's so easy for that sort of culture to breed indicates fundamental problems which desperately need addressing before this kind of power could possibly be entertained for such weak institutions...
I am speechless. As an Australian (from Queensland though) I am absolutely shocked because I know from repeated experience as do many that local councils are staffed and run by usually highly incompetent people. How is it a council is able to access such information in the first place? Someone needs to demand some answers.
Would hate for those criminals breaking the law with their unregistered pets considering it costs like maximum $80 per year to register a pet...
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm [2]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053039/Council-use-...