To remain safe we must be prepared to give up certain freedoms – disagreeing – by Izzy
With the Australian government “actively considering” data retention, it is believed to be causing uproar between the nation of Australia. Data retention or Metadata is the data created when online tasks are undertaken and other forms of electronic communication are made. Metadata is not what you type on a device or say over the phone, but rather the footprint that's left behind. The government claims it is to protect us from terrorism and track home based terrorists. Spy agencies claim it is an “immediate need in the face of heightened fears of potential terrorist attacks on Australian soil”. The main questions to consider though are what freedom will be left for us? Will this data be abused and how badly does this affect our privacy rights? This presentation includes our privacy rights being misused or abused. How government surveillance insinuates us as guilty, even though we are not plus how it is wrong because in this day and age we already have such little privacy.
• The Government and powers such as internationally-respected authority on cybercrime ‘Alistair McGibbon’ have not addressed the risk of the metadata being abused. In the history of humankind, has there even been an occasion when a something powerful implemented by the government, wasn’t extended beyond its original job. Think about how valuable two years of metadata would be to powers who wish to track down and punish whistle-blowers. Dataset could easily be used to embarrass or intimidate critics. I don’t share McGibbon’s trust in the restraint of the powerful. We have no actual suitable reasons existing to us as to why we need this except tracking supposed terrorists. It’s funny how the government claims the data’s main purpose is to focus on terrorist attacks when the last one we had was the ‘1978, Sydney Hilton bombing’ which was hosting the first Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting. This means there hasn’t been an attack for 36 years so excuse the nation for being a bit suspicious of the governments “motives.”
• Following this idea of the government not fully implying what is going to be obtained by metadata and the misuse that could happen; does this also suggest that we are guilty? If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear, right? But should we trust them with this information in the first place? It’s not as though they’ve done a lot to engender trust in the first place. Why, should people be subjected to surveillance when almost, I believe the whole nation have nothing to do with terrorism. The data retention acts as a blanket on the Internet surveillance system treating us all secretly as suspects. I believe Australia has the right to not be suspected as criminals by default because generally there is not a large amount of terrorist attacks in Australia. More people die falling out of bed or in car crashes in Australia then terrorist attacks. I say we all be cautious of metadata and the purpose of it.
• So what about privacy? Privacy is one of the major concerns following government surveillance. Surveillance leaves little to no privacy for everyday citizens with