Political clash of luddite QCs and tech are a dangerous combination

Political clash of luddite QCs and tech are a dangerous combination

Summary: Australia faces a dangerous conflation of technology-driven surveillance and an almost total lack of technical comprehension from the political class.

SHARE:

Technology, surveillance, and politics have always gone hand in hand, but with the consumer-driven and smartphone-addicted state of affairs being what they are in the computing industry, it has never been easier for governments to force others to hand over vast realms of data on their populations.

Whereas in the past, actual police work may have had to have been used to find out where a person frequents, now with the help of smartphones and a warrant, authorities can obtain a collection of location data with ease, be it an Apple or Google device.

With safeguards and proper oversight from politicians and civilian administrators, it is theoretically a simple exercise to maintain a balance between security and liberty, but as with so many theoretical assumptions, the reality is removed from the theory.

Take the situation currently unfolding in Australia around data retention and copyright infringement.

In the midst of a policy announcement that was dripping in patriotic motifs — flags, nationalism, and a concept called 'Team Australia' — was a quick glazing over of a new initiative to be developed that would require the nation's telecommunication companies and ISPs to retain "metadata" for two years.

No explanation for what constituted the government's idea of "metadata" was offered, even under direct questioning, Australia's chief law officer, Attorney-General George Brandis QC, could not clarify the government's position and only served to muddy the water even further. In this task, Brandis was ably assisted by his Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who successfully managed to put the wind up every technically-literate person across the island continent when he spoke of metadata as the browsing history of individuals, and as an improper analogy, associated postal envelopes with metadata.

Eventually, the technically-knowledgeable member of Cabinet, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull — who had hiterto been sidelined in the debate, and had to reportedly read about the data retention proposal that he would be enacting and negotiating in a newspaper — entered the fray to clean up the mess and explain the situation.

Turnbull ruled out collecting browsing history of individuals, and then admitted days later that tech-savvy users will know how to avoid having their IP addresses logged against sites they visit, and that the scheme would still be costly and impractical.

If driving Australians towards VPNs and other encryption schemes was the goal of the government's data retention announcement, then it worked like a treat.

Zenmate, a VPN-like Chrome browser plugin, said last week that it had seen a spike of interest from Australia.

"We have seen a 60 percent increase in visitors from Australia to the Chrome store over the past three weeks," said ZenMate co-founder Simon Specka. "We saw similar results following recent internet restrictions when Turkey's PM banned Twitter."

Perhaps it is an overreaction to compare Australia's data retention proposal, which Turnbull clarified was simply a pairing of IP address and subscriber account, to the sort of online government intervention that occurs in Turkey, but it all could have been avoided with a small dose of knowledge about how information and communication technologies work, along with an understanding that being sparse with the details would make those informed of such things assume the worst.

The looming issue hanging over data retention is that it could be the first of a series of incremental steps that encroach on civil liberties because "Team Australia" claims it needs more capability to thwart the threat of terrorism.

Recent comments from Telstra CEO David Thodey that the dominant Australian telco collects more data on its customers than the government is currently after, does little to dissuade a future government that extending the scheme would be much of an impost.

In a recent interview with Alastair MacGibbon, general manager of security with Dimension Data Australia and a former federal agent with the Australian Federal Police, I asked MacGibbon about the old saying that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance, and if that is the case, why not invite intelligence services directly into one's home.

"As a former police officer, I'd say to you that I agree wholeheartedly with the ability to be able to sit in your lounge room from time to time using a listening device and having a telephone intercept on your phone," MacGibbon said.

"But I also understand that there has to be an awful lot of civil oversight of that activity and that it shouldn't be a blanket authority because the minute you make it a blanket authority, it will get abused.

"You need to be able to justify your actions, and that goes the same for any agency, in my view, collecting information."

The oversight that MacGibbon says is necessary, and the body that would normally provide it in Australia, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (OIGIS), said on Friday that it will need additional resources to simply cope with new powers that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is set to gain to expand its ability to tap computers.

Not only will it need funding, but OIGIS said that it will need technical know-how to be able to keep an eye on Australia's spies.

"The increasing complexity of computer related operations means that the IGIS office requires increased access to technical expertise to oversight these operations effectively," the OIGIS said in a parliamentary submission.

The combination of the level of technical aptitude shown by the government in its announcement of data retention, mixed in with OIGIS' admission that is going to struggle to keep up with ASIO's new hacking powers, leaves little doubt where the technical knowledge in Canberra, and the political world in general, lies.

It should come as no shock that across the world, the politicians that create the legislation that impacts on citizen's lives are far from domain specialists — although many are learned, it is rare nowadays to see an ex-professional enter politics from outside of the legal fraternity — more often than not we are left with career politicians with little to offer apart from how to get legislation drawn up and passed.

However, that doesn't mean that the other arms of the political environment — the press and the electorate — should let the neophytes off easy.

But as technology allows information to be compiled, stored, and subsequently handed over with the issue of an electronic warrant, few questions are asked by those in a position to peer into the machines of governance. The furore over data retention in Australia was a rare time that the press gallery took a technical issue and ran with it, even if many didn't have a perfect grasp on the exact difference between what an IP address and a URL were, at least the result was the correct one.

Equally though, the impetus is on the electorate to create a fuss when its governments do something that it does not agree with, and by that I mean more than sign an online petition, which must go down as the single most inept way to express an opinion yet conjured by humans. When it comes to influencing decisions, writing an angry email or calling up the office of your local member or their political party is a far better way to get results than acting as a keyboard warrior and being very angry about your feelings on social media.

We live in a time where technology's ability to manipulate society is at an all time high, and it will reach an even greater level tomorrow.

Mobility, increased connectivity, the cloud, cryptography, and other computing concepts are only going to further embed their influence on us all, and we need to make sure that we get the benefits of their use, and minimise the drawbacks as much as we can.

In the past, it was possible for technically-adept people to be consigned to the metaphorical, sometimes physical, basement and be left to their own devices, but over the past half-century, it has become increasingly central to how people go about their daily lives, and it is high time that our political classes caught up with that fact.

It would be preferable if those who decided our laws had an idea of what they are talking about, but in lieu of wisdom, it is up to the rest of us to slap some sense into them, and be eternally vigilant about the naive or willfully ignorant making decisions beyond their capability.

Topics: Security, Emerging Tech, Government, Government AU, Privacy

About

Chris started his journalistic adventure in 2006 as the Editor of Builder AU after originally joining CBS as a programmer. After a Canadian sojourn, he returned in 2011 as the Editor of TechRepublic Australia, and is now the Australian Editor of ZDNet.

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

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Better how?

    Writing to or calling your local member is better how? As a single individual they can (and do) just ignore you. As a member of a large group all calling and emailing politicians to that point where their email and phone systems collapse for days, they just ignore you. As a member of a group signing a petition they just ignore you and label you as a 'fringe group' because you're still only a tiny proportion of the total population. If you march en mass with fully 10% of the Australian population, they ignore you and label you as 'the mob'. Even if polls show in excess of 80% of the population are opposed to a policy, they will still ignore you and press on regardless.

    There is one thing politicians and parties will listen to, and that is election results. That's it. And they know that the majority of voters are not only technically illiterate, they are uninterested, often hostile to the very subject. They are mostly uneducated *and* actively avoid gaining any real understanding of the issues, preferring to make kneejerk decisions based on sound bites or simply follow the published opinion of the party they have blindly followed for generations. Remember, according to the average Australian they don't need further education because they're already experts - just ask them ;-)

    Oh and don't kid yourself - politicians don't listen to the reasons behind electoral failure - all they listen to is the fact that they are or are not in government. They won't acknowledge that the electorate may have disliked certain policies or disagreed with their approach, nor will the sitting government accept that when they were voted in it wasn't because the electorate agreed with every single one of their policies, giving them a 'mandate' to introduce every single idiotic brain-fart.

    We don't have representative government in this country, we have politicians who's first allegiance lies with their party position, the second with donors, the third with friends and associates and somewhere way down the end, the electorate. Unless the system is changed to one integrating some form of accountability for both parties and politicians personally you *will not change anything*. You will be ignored, ridiculed (right, Malcolm?), dismissed, avoided, persecuted, overruled and maybe even jailed (remember Pauline Hanson? I might not have agreed with her, but she didn't deserve to go to jail due to a witch hunt and a gross miscarriage of justice).

    But maybe I'm just jaded. You carry on writing to your local representative. Maybe you'll influence a law somewhere. History is certainly full of examples where laws have been passed in the interest of citizens who have raised legitimate concerns to their local members of parliament. Oh, right, I meant there are *NO* examples. So easy to get that confused.
    TrevorX
    • Sorry, may not happen much but it does happen!

      Through the 1990's Motorcycling groups all over Australia ran a long running campaign to change a "Lights on law" that labor bought in. Took years but we changed it!
      martin_js
  • Dr. Ghostly

    TrevorX's response says it all.
    "Oi reckon we should bring back pedal computers with 4k of RAM. That's wot oi reckon. See oi can do techonalogikal stuff an one day oi'm gonna be a politician too. Oi'll put em back on track."
    Dr. Ghostly
  • the Canberra clowns don't know

    The Canberra clowns don't know what they have signed up for because the US has told them what they have to do as part of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement aka the TPPA. They are bending over so far that we will all be screwed.

    The NSA spooks are doing bulk internet traffic data collection then analysing it to look for suspicious data. At this point they then have suspicious data, a source IP address, and a destination IP address. The destination IP address is easy to figure out but the source is the hard part because most ISPs don't allocate you a fixed address. Can you see it coming now? The US told our government that they have to retain the users' IP address assignments for 2 years. What do our bright spark pollies do? They dump all this on the ISPs who will then raise their prices to the consumers.

    We get all these platitudes from our pollies that they are not collecting browsing history. What they don't say is the NSA is doing for them. If you are going to be a target because of your browsing or downloading habits then you better get yourself a proxy which, preferably, is not in the USA.
    bd1235