(The purpose of this and the next blog I will write is to identify all the information I want and need to cover in my major work for BCM310.)
As of 2015 the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 requires;
“telecommunications service providers to retain and to secure for two years telecommunications data (not content)… require the minister to refer to the PJCIS (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security) any legislative proposal to amend which agencies can access the data… provide that certain matters relating to data retention be included in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s (ASIO) annual report; Intelligence Services Act 2001”
‘Data (not Content)’ is often referred to as Metadata, which is described by whatis.techtarget as “data that describes other data” in this sense it it the who, when and where of data. Oliver Laughland provides examples of what metadata is and how it is stored in his article ‘What can you learn about me from 24 hours of my metadata?‘ he highlights that things such as; what his name is, where he is, what internet services he uses, which events he plans on attending, etc. Laughland essentially shows the depths of which metadata is embedded into our lives and displays how reacing into this information may be seen a a breech of personal privacy. The second point I wanted to discuss from the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendement is that all recorded data is at he will of the PJCIS, while this in itself is not a bad thing, there is potential for undesirable groups illegally accessing this information. The last point of the Amendment is that ASIO also has access to this information, this is in response to terrorist threats and can be seen as beneficial in catching any threats to the country.
What it comes down to is that ISP (internet Service Providers are being forced to retain and yield a minimum of two years of metadata they gathered on their customers. This information is given up to various wings of the government in an effort to reduce crime.
Questions arise however, over the intrusive nature of the collection. It is up to the consumer to decide if this breech of privacy is necessary for the welfare and security of our nation.