Conclusion

There is no denying that access to telecommunications data can be beneficial in charging and convicting crimes. But it is whether the amendments introduced by the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill is necessary. These amendments include a broad definition of data retention, and an unnecessarily long period of data retention. But even more questionable is the lack of safeguards in place to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. The parliamentary inquiry introduced many ideas for the bill in order to protect its citizens. Plus a vast amount stakeholders position papers have questioned how effective these amendments may be. Especially when it is modelled off the European Unions laws which have been determined as a blatant breach of privacy.

 

ASIO and law enforcement agencies have access to our data without our knowledge, with the exception of journalistic sources requiring a warrant. This is a worrying notion, when privacy is an essential human right, and many Australians via submissions to parliament have voiced their concern about this. This bill has opened up the laws to be easily modified so that the government can gain more and more information about its citizens.

 

Furthermore, technology, storage of data and examples of security risks question whether this expansion of the TIA Act is all worth it for the safety of Australian Citizens.

 

I know from my research that I will most certainly be signing the petition to pledge my concern about these amendments.  Data retention may help in solving crime, but the amendments to the TIA Act are not the way to go about it. More pressure from Australian citizens needs to be placed on the government regarding their concerns.

 

If you feel the same, sign the petition by ‘Citizens not Suspects’ at getup.org.au

 

Or you can join Electronic Frontiers Australia and help in being the voice for digital freedom, access and privacy.