New powers for spooks snooping on the internet

James Riley
Tuesday, 17 November 2009 10:38

IT Policy - Government Tech Policy

The Australian Greens have issued a dissenting report on amendments to the Telecommunications Interception Act, objecting to increased powers given to authorities to intercept internet messages for the purpose of protecting critical computer network infrastructure.

The Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee tabled its report today recommending that the proposed changes to the Act be passed.

But in a dissenting report the Greens say not enough measures are in place to protect people's privacy, and that the definitions of what constitutes "network protection duties" – the catch-all phrase that allows law enforcement agencies to act – were too vague.

The changes enable certain specified agencies – generally those related to law enforcement, national security, defence or international relations – to intercept communications and take disciplinary actions to make computer networks are kept safe from malicious attack.

Western Australian Greens senator Scott Ludlam was already unhappy that the committee did not conduct public hearings on the issue, and was further concerned that the committee did not adequately address concerns of groups like the Australian Privacy Foundation, Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

The Greens also called for stronger requirements and guidelines for the destruction on intercepted materials.

"We don’t share the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's view that the Bill should be passed without amendment, and will be arguing strongly for the government to consider important privacy issues before giving authorities these increased powers," Senator Ludlam said.

"I am disappointed that greater efforts haven't been made to achieve a better balance between the important need to secure electronic data and computer networks, and peoples' right to privacy."

The majority committee report noted that organisations that had made submissions did not feel the Bill was clear enough in its definitions, and that there was concern that there was no requirement to destroy copies of intercepted material.

But it also said the organisations were generally supportive of the principles of the Bill.

Senator Ludlam said putting protections in place to ensure intercepted material is destroyed as soon as it was no longer required was fundamental to getting the balance right in the legislation

"It is disappointing that the Attorney General's Department chose to dismiss such concerns, stating that imposing an obligation to destroy copies of lawfully intercepted information is unenforceable," Senator Ludlam said.

The committee said the amendments should be reviewed after five years.