Data Retention Enthusiast Says Those Against The Idea Just Want Everything 'Free Of Charge, Free Of Responsibility'

Privacy

from the dirty-pirates dept

Wed, Mar 4th 2015 1:00am — Glyn Moody

Arguments over whether internet connection metadata should be retained for law enforcement purposes are raging around the world, but nowhere more heatedly than in Australia, where a new law bringing in data retention is currently being rammed through parliament. This has provoked widespread criticism of the move as unnecessary, intrusive and ill thought-out. Defenses have been thinner on the ground, which makes this column in the Australian newspaper The Age particularly interesting. The author, David Wroe, seems to think that the problem is a failure to explain what's really going on here: Plans to force telcos to keep people's phone and internet metadata for at least two years haven't been explained as thoroughly as they probably should, with the consequence that many Australians remain confused and vulnerable to excessive claims that their privacy is being trampled upon.
Well, it's certainly true that the Australian Attorney General George Brandis, who is responsible for bringing in the data retention law, was very confused when he was asked to explain metadata in a TV interview. But rather than dispelling that confusion by pointing to explanations of what metadata can do, Wroe simply makes the following claim: A data retention regime of two years, with proper precautions around how that data it is accessed by authorities, is reasonable, proportionate and necessary.
No support is provided for that statement. That's not really surprising, because all the evidence we have is that data retention simply doesn't help. In Germany, for example, police records show that blanket data retention had no effect on crime statistics: The national crime statistics recently published by Germany's Federal Crime Agency reveal that after the policy of blanket telecommunications data retention was discontinued in Germany due to a Constitutional Court ruling on 3 March, 2010, registered crime continued to decline (2007: 6,284,661; 2008: 6,114,128; 2009: 6,054,330; 2010: 5,933,278) and the crime clearance rate was the highest ever recorded (56,0%). Indiscriminate and blanket telecommunications data retention had no statistically relevant effect on crime or crime clearance trends.
In Denmark, police found that retaining huge quantities of internet connection data actually made things harder for them: "Session logging has caused serious practical problems," the ministry's staffers write in the report. "The implementation of session logging proved to be unusable to the police; this became clear the first time they tried to use [the data] as part of a criminal investigation."
Leaving aside this inconvenient fact that there is no evidence that data retention helps, here's one of the author's arguments in its favor: It is absurd to allow a situation in which police might need to establish whether one criminal suspect phoned or emailed another suspect last year only to find the telco has already wiped those records.
Not really: we don't expect DNA or fingerprints from the scene of a crime to be preserved years later. We hope they may be available soon afterwards, and in the same way there's no reason why the police might not ask ISPs to provide information about recent online activity of a suspect. But it is not reasonable to expect everything to be kept for years, just because it's possible -- not least because this allows the authorities to engage in fishing expeditions and thus apply the Cardinal Richelieu approach. There's also no reason why the police should not be required to obtain a warrant before doing so, despite what Wroe says: Some have called for warrants to be required for accessing metadata. This would be too unwieldy.
Warrants have worked well enough in the past, so why discard them now in the digital field? Because they might put a brake on the routine use of stored metadata by the authorities? That's a feature, not a bug: it would help to ensure that its use were truly proportionate, unlike the system proposed by the Australian government. Here's another attempt to defend data retention: Arguments that retention is pointless because ill-doers can use encryption programs to hide their identities, or because the regime won't capture overseas data – meaning Gmail, Hotmail and other US-based services are exempt – are silly. Nothing in a free society is foolproof; something is better than nothing.
But when that "something" is such a marginal improvement on nothing, and comes at such great cost -- both financially, in terms of the burden on ISPs and taxpayers, and socially, through the damage to the privacy and freedom of the public -- then it is hardly rational to proceed purely because it is "better than nothing," especially in the absence of any more compelling reasons.

As this indicates, the author's arguments in favor of data retention are weak; but what is most striking is his attack on those who defend their right to privacy, and dare to challenge the badly-planned rush to impose mass surveillance on Australians: At the heart of the anti-retention argument is an attitude that everything to do with the internet should be free: free of charge, allowing unlimited downloading of pirated content, and free of responsibility, meaning that nothing we do on the web should be discoverable later on.
In other words, anyone against massive, disproportionate surveillance is probably just some kind of dirty copyright thief.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, data retention, david wroe, george brandis, privacy

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 1:25am

Simple, so simple...
If Our/Your glorious Leaders react to anything, they always choose it with these guidelines=
If it is idiotic, insane AND evilminded therefore it is only available option.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon Frost, 4 Mar 2015 @ 1:47am

One key fact
It's a lazy article but it does point out one key fact that most people seem to be missing. Metadata retention isn't about paedophiles and terrorists - it's about tracking down copyright infringers.

Any serious criminal will use a VPN or Tor so their metadata will be private but the same can't be said for most torrenters.

I would be surprised if the TPP doesn't have something to say on this issue as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 1:52am

From the article: Warrants have worked well enough in the past, so why discard them now in the digital field? Because they might put a brake on the routine use of stored metadata by the authorities?

No, it's about lack of accountability.

Warrants could be relaxed for easier access in criminal investigations. But warrants provide accountability, and by a third party at that (i.e.: not the police station).

While you can get warrants to snoop on 5-10 friends of a suspected bank robber, you can't justify getting a warrant to snoop on your ex-wife/girlfriend/crush.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 2:05am

"In other words, anyone against massive, disproportionate surveillance is probably just some kind of dirty copyright thief."

And by that token, anyone who supports said surveillance is probably some kind of totalitarian mass-murderer. We actually have history to back us up on that; all they got is whatever they pull out their ass and enough money and shills to guilt trip society into believing their monkey crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 4 Mar 2015 @ 2:33am

Wow. Just wow. I'd call them dumbasses if we didn't already know these bastards know exactly what they are doing.

I say if they are FOR the idea of data retention are supporters of totalitarian regimes, slavery and other violations that may not come to light due to activist being harassed by the Government. Sounds nice eh? Let's start saying they support genocide and Human Rights violations and see how they react, shall we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gordon, 4 Mar 2015 @ 3:08am

Government in Copyright Holder Lackey Scandal
Ahhhh, so this 'data retention' is actually about copyright!

Nothing to do with 'organised crime' or 'terrorism' or whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 3:49am

In other words "guilty until proven innocent". That's what the whole idea behind data retention represents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 4 Mar 2015 @ 3:52am

The purpose
The purpose of the safeguards is to ensure that the authorities start from investigating a crime and search for suspects - as opposed to starting from a suspect and searching for a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 5:09am

This argument defeats itself
Arguments that retention is pointless because ill-doers can use encryption programs to hide their identities, or because the regime won't capture overseas data – meaning Gmail, Hotmail and other US-based services are exempt – are silly. Nothing in a free society is foolproof; something is better than nothing.

This is arguing that the existence of ways to bypass retention is not a problem. But aren't these data retention proposals, themselves, an attempt to reduce the chance of being able to avoid traditional investigative methods? By the same argument, being able to escape due to the lack of data retention is not a problem. "Nothing in a free society is foolproof; something is better than nothing."

Arguments that investigative methods are pointless because ill-doers can rely on the lack of data retention are silly. Something is better than nothing, but we already have something, even without data retention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 5:09am

So they steal all your data with no recourse or compensation, and then claim it is you who want everything for free.

Brilliant !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 5:53am

In other words: If you don't fully trust the government, you're probably a crook.

In other other words: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

In yet still other words: You're either for us or against us.

False dichotomies, anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnonCow, 4 Mar 2015 @ 6:30am

If the data is retained for two years, is it really a problem if the search warrant process is unwieldly? The police have TWO YEARS to work on getting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter (profile), 4 Mar 2015 @ 9:19am

'Free Of Charge, Free Of Responsibility'
It is not those AGAINST The Idea that Just Want Everything 'Free Of Charge, Free Of Responsibility', it those FOR it.

Secret services. police. publishers. media organizations. All of them want data retention. All of them promise the blue sky if they get it - no more terrorists, children will be safe, creative people will finally be able to pay for their own coffee. Hurrah.

Pay for it? Nah, the infrastructure has to be paid for by someone else. Every Australian has to pay 24 dollars every year for benefit of being spied upon. Accountability? Operate in the dark, lie, cheat and wiggle out of any enquiry, and envoke 'national security' if all else fails. Or change a law retroactively to avoid prosecution.

And the benefits? Data retention has been around for a long time in some countries. Crime rates? Unaffected. Terrorists? Don't seem to be impressed. And child abuse? Well, while GCHQ and Scotland Yard and all the other 'security agencies' were busy filming and monitoring everything that anybody does in Britain, the real criminals conducted what David Cameron described as 'sex abuse on 'industrial scale'. Thousands of children being abused in real life while the people paid to protect them sit in dark basements and stare at computer screens.

So, when the Australian police wants their citizens to shell out $24 per year for their ISPs to collect data, it is the perfect time to be greedy and tell them to get back on the streets and chase real criminals.
If the French had told that to their police, the journalists murdered in Paris recently might still be alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 10:13am

Some have called for warrants to be required for accessing metadata. This would be too unwieldy.
At the heart of the anti-warrant argument is an attitude that everything to do with the internet should be free: free of accountability, allowing unlimited downloading of citizens' data, and free of responsibility, meaning that nothing the government does on the web should be discoverable later on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 10:14am

The fucking cheek to talk about others having responsibility, when it might aswell be a foreign word when the tables are turned........wheres YOUR "moral" highground
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 10:17am

God forbid we try to create an equal society where sharing is'nt frowned upon, where theres no need for a big brother, and folks can, you know........be happy

God forbid
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 4 Mar 2015 @ 10:34am

Power Corrupts.
During the Russian show-trials of the 1930's, the English diplomat Fitzroy McLean came to the conclusion that many of the prisoners had not been arrested for any kind of political reason, but because they had sexy wives, whom someone in authority coveted. Hence the husbands were shot. That is simply the way power operates.

I think we can assume that something similar is operating in Australia. Quite possibly the Australian police propose to use the meta-data as an instrument of blackmail to acquire teenage mistresses for important politicians, and friends of politicians, journalists who support the government, etc.. Bill Clinton used state troopers as pimps, after all. Or read about the Profumo Affair. Power corrupts. Absolute poer corrupts absolutely. Politicians are not saintly high-minded men. The truth is that they usually yield to temptation in the worst way, and the things they rant about are often their own inner projections.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 11:18am

Re:
It's worse than that, they wish to charge the ISP's (& therefore their customers) for the priviledge of collecting & storing the data for 2 years. Oh, & the taxpayers may have to cough up a few million as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 4 Mar 2015 @ 11:26am

Exactly
In other words, anyone against massive, disproportionate surveillance is probably just some kind of dirty copyright thief. (Paraphrasing of George Brandis' argument.)
Whereas in fact most of us aren't against data retention where the cops show up with a correctly formatted and signed warrant with all of its I's dotted and T's crossed, we're simply against the retention of all data for months and years on end on the slight off-chance that one of us is doing something illegal. Any properly conducted investigation would probably turn up reams more evidence against a criminal than any amount of data retention, so it shouldn't be allowed as a shortcut to justice since its so violative of privacy. Simples!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 4 Mar 2015 @ 11:52am

I would settle fro free of corruption
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 12:37pm

The Attorney General that introduced this bill has been referred to the Australian Federal Police for corruption (for trying to bribe the Human Rights Commissioner). His chief of staff was the last head of ASIO. The current PM is like a dumber and more vicious version of GW. It was recently reported that he sought advise about unilaterally deploying 3,500 ground troops to Iraq.

The current Australian government is widely regarded as the worst in Australia's history.

The senate are blocking everything they come up with now, except for all of the police state legislation.

We are going to be paying for this shit for decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 2:04pm

Re: One key fact
"It's a lazy article"

WTF was that passive aggressive little gem for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnonCow, 4 Mar 2015 @ 3:47pm

It isn't really a problem to have the search warrant process be "unwieldly" if you have two years to get the warrant...

Bad cop, no doughnut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Parker, 4 Mar 2015 @ 3:53pm

Let the FACTS be known
Supporters don't understand what they are wanting. They cant because they haven't declared that themselves. Meta data is a broad term that loosely defines/describes data. You could argue an MP3 of a full conversation is just metadata. They need to clarify this.
This is also a side issue, a distraction, as collecting this information is like telling an older person, "we are going to photo copy every document you ever read, every page you ever opened regardless of your opinion about it or your motivation to read it, and use it against you." Stop tyring to pretend digital media is different IT IS NOT. IT IS JUST FASTER. People should have the same rights regardless of AGE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 4:24pm

So basically there's an overlap between people who think everyone who disagrees with them are pirates, and people who think everyone who disagrees with them are terrorists.

Sounds like Whatever's shtick alright, or whatever dumb pseudonym horse with no name has chosen to pick this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 5 Mar 2015 @ 2:59am

At the heart of the pro-retention argument is an attitude that everything to do with the internet should be licensed: a charge for each usage, allowing unlimited rent-seeking of copyrighted content, and free of accountability, meaning that everything we do on the web should be discoverable later on.

FIFY Wroe, you corporate shill!

And don't get to thinking that data retention would end at two years, oh, no. He and his ilk will demand longer and longer retention terms through which they will dig for information they can sell about our browsing habits, etc. while claiming that anyone who objects to this is a dirty, stinking pirate, or something. What a despicable man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dingledore the Flabberghaster, 5 Mar 2015 @ 3:30am

Re: Exactly
Agreed. Data retention in itself isn't really the problem; it's the potential for abuse of the data, especially where properly reasoned warrants aren't required.

But even with warrants, the volume of data retained will still never be a full picture. It inevitably produces a larger number of false positives than a more focused, more specific line tap. In which case, wholesale data retention causes more problems than it solves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WaitWot, 5 Mar 2015 @ 6:53pm

Show me yours...
Dear George (or is that General George??)

Show me your metadata and I'll show you mine. I mean you have nothing to hide, amiright?

Once data retention comes in it will NEVER disappear!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2017 @ 10:42pm

Re: Re:
Well MAFIAA and their ilk are all about Projection. They talk about stealing from artist and haven't given them royalty payments. They complain about people wanting things for free and demand that everyone else do their job for them.

Serving their masters in this case is a bonus for them since they get to abuse surveillance for their own purposes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]