Attorney general defends Cybercrime Bill

Marina Freri
Tuesday, 30 August 2011 12:11

IT Policy - Government Tech Policy

In an opinion piece today in the Sydney Morning Herald, Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, has defended the Cybercrime Bill against accusations that it will jeopardise people's privacy and that private information will not be securely managed.

The House of Representative last week passed the Cybercrime Bill. It introduces legislative changes designed to enable Australia to join the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. However the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety report on the bill was highly critical and it has come in for strident criticism from Greens communications spokesman, senator Scott Ludlam.

The Bill enables agencies to request the preservation of communications that carriers store and that can be of interest for an investigation; it also fosters cooperation between agencies and overseas partners, and finally it extends the scope of cybercrime offences to fully meet the requirements under the Convention.

'Australia's proposed accession to the Convention on Cybercrime has prompted some commentators to suggest that because Australia does not have a bill of rights, we should not modernise our cybercrime laws because our privacy is not protected,' McClelland said. 'This is not the case'.

He stated the changes would not impact on the way in which access to private information would be managed; and he said assertions that the bill would now allow agencies to store information without a warrant were incorrect.

'This bill will allow law enforcement agencies to request a service provider not to destroy information about suspected criminal activity while a warrant is sought,' he said. 'Only when a warrant is granted can the information be accessed. If no warrant is granted, the information will be destroyed. 'To suggest that this implies new incursions on people's privacy is also wrong,' he said.

'Providers already retain data under strict guidelines. It must be managed consistent with the National Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act including a requirement for the information to be managed securely'.

He concluded that the bill would operate in accordance with the National Privacy Principles contained in the Privacy Act. With regards to international cooperation on criminal cases where the death penalty may be imposed, he said Australia had already existing frameworks for sharing information with foreign agencies and that the bill would work accordingly.

However Ludlam said the bill had a 'series of flaws' which could eventually result in reduced civil liberties for Australians. 'We all want to see enhanced collaboration between law enforcement agencies fighting serious crime, but the proposed law goes well beyond the already controversial European convention on which it is based and will encroach on civil liberties,' Ludlam stated.

Also, Ludlam added that while the Convention did not require ongoing collection and retention of communications, the Australian Bill did. 'These are disturbing flaws that must be fixed, but the Government and Opposition have passed this Bill through the House with no acknowledgement of that," he said.