Roxon calls for cold shower on data-retention 'hysteria'

Roxon calls for cold shower on data-retention 'hysteria'

Summary: Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has called for a "cold shower" on the public reaction to the government's proposal to log Australians' internet history for up to two years.


Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has said that the public reaction to the government's proposal to require internet service providers (ISPs) to retain customer data for up to two years has been hysterical, and that the government is asking for much less than has been claimed.

Roxon gave a speech on Tuesday stating that forcing ISPs to retain customer data for up to two years is required to ensure that law-enforcement agencies can continue to investigate crime. Reaction to Roxon's announcement saw an unusual alliance between organisations such as Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), the Institute of Public Affairs, GetUp, and the Greens, all of which expressed outrage over the plan. And although the Coalition hasn't made its position on the issue known formally, Liberal backbencher Steve Ciobo compared the proposal on Tuesday to something that would have been seen in Nazi Germany during World War II.

"I think that this proposal is akin, frankly, to tactics that we would have seen utilised by the Gestapo or groups like that," he told Lateline.

Roxon yesterday defended the proposal, saying that the government has sought feedback on it, along with a number of other telecommunications security legislation ideas as part of a parliamentary review that's currently underway. She said that claims that the government wants to obtain every bit of data are incorrect, and that there has been "hysteria" around the data-retention proposal.

"No decisions have yet been made," she told ABC Radio in Perth. "What [law-enforcement agencies are] asking for is not what has been reported.

"It's not to keep a record of every website that's visited. It's not to keep the content of every email. It's not to force people to give their passwords to police. It's actually keeping what's called metadata; so, a record potentially of the time that a phone call is made, the time or fact of an email being sent. Something that our law-enforcement agencies can already do, where they suspect crime."

Roxon said that people have jumped to the wrong conclusion that the government is going to enact the proposal, and that "they're going to be in your head virtually for everything you ever use on the computer."

"I really do think people need a little bit of a cold shower with this, because the government has not yet made the decision. It's why we're having the inquiry; so we can have the debate, test the ideas, see if there's an appropriate balance. And we'll only make our decisions at the end of the year, when the committee gives us their report."

But Roxon's claims that the government is only seeking metadata does not match the discussion paper that was released as part of the review.

The review states that the government is looking at "applying tailored data-retention periods for up to two years for parts of a dataset, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities and privacy and cost impacts", and does not specify the exact dataset it is after.

In fact, part of the paper states that the government may need to collect "communications content", not just the data, from companies such as Facebook and Google.

Communications Alliance CEO John Stanton told the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) conference in Sydney yesterday that the government has failed to explain on a number of fronts what data needs to be retained for law-enforcement purposes.

"The proposal is gloriously ill defined in the discussion paper, where it talks about the potential desirability of retaining a dataset for two years," he said. "A dataset could be an inch or a mile long, and the obvious implications in terms of the breadth for it both in terms of carriers complying.

"We need a much better definition of that."

He said that the length of time that the government wants ISPs to keep the data does not fit with what the international experience with data retention has been.

"The data we see out of Europe suggests that the vast majority of instances where data is used by enforcement authorities to chase crime sees data used that is less than six months old, not two years," he said.

He said that it needs to be clearly defined which government agencies would be allowed access to the data, too.

"We've had instances [in the past] where there have been requests put to our members for access to their database because a local council has uncovered a piece of paper that is a piece of litter and the council wants to track down who it was that dropped that piece of litter, so they can whack them with a AU$15 fine," he said. "That doesn't make sense to us.

"There needs to be sensible restrictions around who can access any data that was retained, and it should be retained in use in combating serious crime."

Under the proposal, agencies with a warrant investigating crimes with at least three years' imprisonment associated will be able to access the data. It won't be just law-enforcement agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police (AFP), but also government revenue agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Centrelink, and the Australian Tax Office (ATO).

Stanton's comments about the lack of definition for the proposal were echoed by Victorian Privacy Commissioner Dr Anthony Bendall, who yesterday told the committee undertaking the inquiry into the proposal that the government needs to flesh out the proposal, and have safeguards and mandatory data breach-notification laws to go with it.

Topics: Government, Government AU


Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Caution: Morons at the helm

    Nicola, you probably will have to take a cold shower yourself given the price of heating water. Courtesy, the other hare brained scheme introduced by Julia - Carbon tax.
    Vasso Massonic
    • "There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead"

      Between that lie and 5 years of utter incompetence, is it any wonder that the Australian public do not trust this government!
  • This is why...

    ...Americans were given the RIGHT to bear arms. You can't change it with laws. Not for protection, not for hunting. Armed insurrection is enshrined in American government.
    Tony Burzio
  • No hope

    Roxon is the one that needs a cold shower if she thinks this has any hope of getting through parliament. The Greens won't support it and the Coalition oppose everything, so every other discussion is moot.
    • Maybe She Should Settle-Petal

      Shes just on a sugar-rush from her illegal win over big tobacco.

      On the upside... with data retention of two years, nobody needs to back up anymore... it's all there for EVERYONE to see.
      Matt Logan
  • So Tell Us Why

    There is already a system in place for the law enforcement agencies to have data retained.

    Show us why the current system is failing and the Government needs to have this information retained for two years.

    Tell us exactly what data they want to be retained.

    Tell us how this data will be secured so it cannot be accessed or used inappropriately.

    Tell us who is going to pay for the cost of storing this data and administering the scheme.

    Until the Attorney-General does this she should run a cold bath and drown the proposal.
    • Shareholders will have to bear the cost of this folly

      Secure storage space for utter bumph.
      Vasso Massonic
  • How's she wearing her hair today???How about those heels?!

    "Something that our law-enforcement agencies can already do, where they suspect crime."

    Huh? She wants to increase the powers to unaccountable bodies, but she doesn't even realize she's undermining her own argument? Groan, bring back McClelland, at least he had a clue - it's embarrasing.
    • Still Cleopatra hair style

      Prob heels to match!
      Vasso Massonic
  • What happens if we put the shoe on the other foot?

    Perhaps we should make sure that all data generated within the political arena is pubilcly available for two years. I'm sure that will make a significant impact on crime and corruption.
  • Wait a minute...

    So she has been quoted as saying..

    "It's actually keeping what's called metadata; so, a record potentially of the time that a phone call is made, the time or fact of an email being sent. Something that our law-enforcement agencies can already do, where they suspect crime."

    So it it can already be done by law enforcement, why the new laws? Sounds very fishy to me.