Dear Ms Bishop,

The argument about the proposed data retention laws does not center on internet anonymity, which is the main thrust of your article.

In the 680-odd words that you posted, there is little said about the risk to personal and, in particular, financial records of Australians, should these laws be brought into effect; there is no mention of the security issues such data storage poses for internet and telecommunications companies and the libelous fallout that may occur should these records fall into the wrong hands; there is no mention of the stunt pulled by the hacking group Anonymous who proved that access to such records even without the new laws is simple for those who have the know-how; and there is no mention of how we can be assured that access by legal entities to such records will not be abused. I would have thought all of these issues might take priority in any article on this subject.

You do address the issue of loss of privacy, but phrases like: “So-called internet trolls hide behind anonymity to attack and denigrate others who have ventured online under their real identity” and “True anonymity online is hard to maintain and behaviour breaching the laws of defamation has led to litigation” might be construed as a reaction to OLO comments about your previous article (and the online argument that ensued), and therefore could be seen by readers as little more than a personal response.

What such comments do raise is the very worrying issue that dissention or, at the least, opposing political, religious or social views, could be perceived as more than they really are: a dissatisfaction with the ‘system’.

You said, “There is no easy answer to the conundrum of where personal liberty ends and the laws of the State are paramount”, but there is a danger that such thinking will usher us into a modern equivalent of McCarthyism (if we are not heading there already), where we are seeing a national security threat under every bed.

A very good article indeed, it's good to see that the conservative side of politics understand the benefits that will flow from an open and free internet - the Libs really seem ahead of the curve on issues of freedom.

With attention on this new securocrat grab for more powers it is well to look again at the blatant abuse of powers already in place to persecute Dr Haneef. Those powers, and much of the persecution, came from the Howard Government, the most egregious role in the Haneef affair being that of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews. Powers that the political police have abused should be struck from their hands, let alone any more be handed to them.

As scribbler notes this article does not address the proposed data retention laws which is a different issue than internet privacy in relation to anonymity.

This is the link to the JPC on Intelligence and Security which is really more about privacy,the nature of democracy and powers of the State. It proposes amendments including the desire of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access data to be held for a proposed period of two years by ISPs and telcos in relation to individual's internet use (social media, emails) and telecommunications data. Commonly referred to as data retention.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/hearings.htm

Yesterday I listened to part of the audio hearings held in Melbourne. There were very good points made by a representative from the Castan Centre about the relationship of the citizen and the State as well as the privacy concerns. The intrusions these proposals will legitimise are frankly unbelievable and suggests that citizens are all potential suspects. It is a truly BIG BROTHER proposal.

Assurances of oversight and safeguards is a bit of a joke and to frame this discussion around safeguards misses the point. Many of the companies destined to store the data do not have adequate safeguards and many have their own problems with data intrusions. Also who pays for the extra work of these telcos/ISPs? It will ultimately be us via higher costs or taxes.

It is akin to governments ordering that all mail be steamed open and contents stored for two years or personal conversations taped and stored in case there is any incriminating evidence that might be useful in future investigations. The nature and expanding technologies does not change the importance of privacy for voice communications as any other form of communication.

This started in the Howard era with former AG Phillip Ruddock with changes to the terrorism legislaton and now being topped off by more intrusions by this government. I note Phillip Ruddock's hearty approval during the hearing of these intrusive proposals which the author of this article fails to acknowledge.

A good article outlining major themes and concerns around data retention:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/government-unveils-huge-wishlist-of-new-surveillance-powers/

Well said Scribbler and Pelican.
In their book What Price Security (2006) Andrew Lynch and George Williams raised a number of valid concerns about the willingness of the (then) Howard government to pass a plethora of laws (37 in five years) in response to the so-called terror threat.

The Rudd and Gillard governments have shown no enthusiasm for providing any safeguards but rather, as the latest proposals show, are perfectly willing to take us yet further down the road to a police state.

Notwithstanding Ms Bishop's valid criticisms one can have absolutely no confidence that a future Coalition government would behave any differently.

We see no mention also of Geroge Bush's Patriot Act,or Obama's Preventative Dentention or legalised assassination of suspected terrorists or his latest Presidential signing order of the National Defence Authorisation Act which gives the military the power to detain anyone in the West indefinitely without trial or legal representation.Australia's Sedition Laws which John Howard initiated have similar powers.Bradley Manning is held thus for being a whistle blower and telling the truth.

All of us including Julie Bishop need to address these realities since the West is rushing towards a fascist state that make the old Soviets look like choir boys.