Peter Coates, well said.

Sadly, as the following account of recent US revelations shows, the Obama administration cannot be trusted:

When President Obama delivered the keynote at Ohio State's graduation in the second weekend in May, who knew how ironic his words would be? "Unfortunately," he told the class of 2013, "you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems... They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

Well, turns out, the voices were right. Only now, the tyranny is no longer lurking around the corner--it's officially arrived. In an unfolding government corruption scandal that may very well eclipse Watergate, the IRS is finally admitting what some congressmen suspected all along: that the administration was using the agency as a hired thug to punish and silence conservatives.

The conspiracy, which started as early as 2010 and may have affected as many as 500 conservative and Christian groups, used the IRS to antagonize organizations seeking non-profit status. Unlike liberal organizations, which, in USA Today's words "got a pass," the IRS demanded reams of sensitive--and often irrelevant--information from tea party, religious, and conservative groups to intimidate or otherwise frustrate the President's opponents. According to Politico, agents asked shockingly private questions, ranging from donors lists (which were later leaked), Facebook posts, and media interviews to minutes from board meetings, résumés of officers, tweets, political blog posts, and even a list of student trainees.

"The fact is," President Obama told the crowd at OSU, "all too often the institutions that give structure to our society have, at times, betrayed your trust." No one knew how profound that betrayal was. Now that we do, it's our duty to ensure it stops.

The links for my previous post:

Transcript: Obama’s Commencement Speech at Ohio State
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/06/transcript-obamas-commencement-speech-at-ohio-state/

USA Today: "IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/

Politico: "The IRS wants YOU -- to share everything"
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DA016CBA-5054-4D41-BC1A-3AFE4A86CED4

There is also the National Security Committee of Cabinet and a National Security Advisor within Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (ironically sharing the acronym NSA with the American National Security Agency):

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/national_security/index.cfm

All these groups share information as deemed necessary to perform their work and that was one of the important lessons to come from 9/11.

However, what can we trust coming from national security agencies. Last year an inquiry was told that national security agencies could be trusted with data retention as there was judicial oversight. Warrantless surveillance suggests there is no judicial oversight.

In fact in this article - http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/12/attorney-general-rejects-metadata-warrants-law-enforcement-would-grind-to-a-halt/

- the Attorney-General in Australia said:

"...that Australian law enforcement in Australia “would grind to a halt” if police officers and other law enforcement agents were forced to apply for a warrant every time they wanted to access Australians’ telecommunications data."

While this statement is refreshengly honest, it highlights the lack of transparency on these arrangements and lack of public discussion.

It is remarkable that while governments become more secretive, with a growing aversion to providing access to information, the same cannot be said regarding the rights of privacy for individuals.

It seems the wrong way around in a democracy. Governments are accountable to the people who put them in office.

Thanks Raycom and pelican

Your value added comments help fill out the picture of oversight, lack of oversight and politicisation of national security systems.

Pelican - yeah, I did remember the National Security Committee of Cabinet after writing the article. I'd hazard a guess Gillard doesn't sit on it - with perhaps the National Security Adviser being the main PM&C Rep on it - then advising Gillard (between her hopeless electioneering stints).

A doubt was whether Stephen Smith, Minister of Defence, has responsibility for DSD's non-defence, domestic, tasks. Looks like DSD is being steadily civilanised with a name change pending - in recognition of its civilian security role - which includes closely working with ASIO and police forces.

Meanwhile Attorney-General Dreyfus looks like mild-mannered Prime Ministerial material for the future. About a week into the AGs job Dreyfus had to show a fair bit of humanity and diplomacy over the Ben Zygier tragedy.

Optimistic (hopefully not misplaced) that our system is not as extreme as America's. We can learn to avoid America's mistakes and excesses.

Cheers

Pete

Simon Breheny's observations in the media release, " US surveillance scandal a warning against Gillard government data retention proposal", on Freedomwatch (http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/us-surveillance-scandal-a-warning-against-gillard-government-data-retention-proposal/ ) are pertinent :

US national security and law enforcement agencies have obtained access to the data of those who use services provided by Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple.
The data collected includes source and destination email addresses, communication times, location information and IP addresses.

“This is exactly the sort of data that the Gillard government wants to force Australian internet service providers to collect and store on all their customers,” said Mr Breheny.

Mr Breheny told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s inquiry into National Security Legislation that data retention “is completely lacking in proportionality, undermines basic freedoms and is in fundamental conflict with a right to privacy.”

“The Australian government and opposition should abandon any attempt to implement mandatory data retention to avoid a similar privacy crisis as is being seen in America,” said Mr Breheny.

Governments usually have bipartisan views on electronic surveillance matters, partly because of the long term planning, international alliances and billion dollar network costs involved. Hence Obama has continued the Bush Republican-conservative approach.

So its probably a bit unfair of Breheny to typify what is probably a steady surveillance buildup since 9/11 as a particularly Labor or Gillard thing.

Labor have problems but aligning long term programs with an overtly ideological approach doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For example China would no doubt have less electronic surveillance funding than Republican, scary Tea Party...or Democrat America.

Just look at US - China defence spending comparisons. Electronic surveillance budgets are usually buried in defence budgets.

Sadly this is another, and a particularly good, example of the 'change you can believe in'. There will be no going back on this. Edward Snowden will ultimately join either Bradley Manning in the dock, or Julian Assange in exile.
And that is a change we can believe in.
We were so blinded by the foolishness of Dubya that we failed to consider carefully that the institutions that give structure to our society have truly betrayed our trust. Such as the presidency of the USA. Obama may not have started this slide, but neither has he done ANYTHING to arrest it. The current POTUS is renowned for his oratorical expertise, and it doesn't seem to matter which side of his face he is talking out of.
Cheney called it straight-up when he announced we would go walking on the dark side. The question now is, can we find our way back?

Hi Pete,
I think is the tip off the iceberg and yes we should be worried. With the amount of traffic(comms)that passes through US sites and the paranoia exhibited by the US in regards to terrorism and security the prospects are not great for any country's security communication. What the Australian security network have or use regarding Australian communications is unknown to date and I do doubt that it will be fully investigated. The other issue is that Australia or any other country does not have the economic power or political will to stop the US from communication spying.

I think our Govt agencies are doing likewise. This is not about protecting us but having absolute control. Fascism is alive and thriving in the West.

Hi Pete
This is close to my old stomping ground. I believe you are right as regards the Minister for Defence. The Intelligence Services Act 2001 comes under portfolio responsibility of Defence Minister as it relates to DIGO, DIO and DSD.

In actual fact the PM does sit on the National Security Committee of Cabinet. Julia Gillard came under attack a couple a few years ago for sending her bodyguard to the meeting in her stead when she was acting Deputy PM.

Another thoughtful contribution from Plantagenet. I do wonder, tho, about his uncharacteristic credulity in relying on the responsibility of the spooks who actually do the work in the agencies. I guess Snowden and (in a different way) our own Andrew Wilkie tend to refute me, but just the same I'd hate to be depending on individual acts like that for protection from overinquisitive governments. No, the legal protections (in Australia) he cites reassure me more, though in principle there is still nothing to stop the NSA/CIA/GCHQ/whatever snooping on me. If they do, they won't be bored, but they won't catch many crims or terrorists, either.

The Yanks see the people of the world as foreigners who are either enemies of American interests or useful, easily-manipulated allies.

Yanks are consumed by self-interest and their minds are filled with fantasies about how 'exceptional' they are even when they are ruthlessly and barbarically destroying other nations and cultures in the name of imperialism and greed.

With America as a 'friend', you don't need enemies!

G’day romingfree

Yes I agree. State electronic surveillance (and datamining/profiling by companies) is very difficult to get a handle on. Sheer state secrecy barriers and technical complexity don’t help this understanding.

Edward hanging out in China’s Hong Kong nicely symbolises Australia’s choices of how close we want to get (or are) to China and America. They are both across the “spy on us game” but one is sort of a friend and the other distrusted. China’s rising political and economic power will make China an intelligence ally of Australia (eg. on counter-terrorism) no matter how repugnant its one party system.

Thanks pelican

For the info. Yes certainly DIGO and DSD are under the Defence Minister and http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2013/05/14/dsd-and-digo-to-be-renamed/ indicates: “the Government has decided to rename these agencies the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO), to more accurately reflect their national roles. [This] will see no change to the current functions, powers or accountability responsibilities of the agencies under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. Both agencies remain in the Department of Defence.”

Presumably DSD's domestic functions (particularly in its InfoSec role http://www.dsd.gov.au/publications/csocprotect/home_computer_security.htm ) are fairly close and constant.

Hi Godless

Speaking as a fellow atheist :) my “uncharacteristic credulity” is by tempered by “Optimis[m] (hopefully not misplaced)”. This is an example of push praising - meaning I hope our security establishment has not been blinded by American science and political pressure. Alternatives like “America and security are plain evil” would be easy lines.

Regards

Pete

Should Australians be worried? of course we should, it seems of late that what ever Barack O does over in the great US of A we have to follow suit, not only with the lets spy on people, for our own good and safety B/S

Where does this newest political party sit with agenda 21.

What are your views on sending (losing) our manufacturing jobs overseas.

What are your views on the dwindling rights of the Australian people, should Government stick to doing what their supposed to do Govern.

What are your views on Governments paying farmers to get off the land, when in reality food production should be a number one priority in a world where food shortage is discussed as a potential megga problem in the not so distant future

Libertypost I agree. Food production should be our number one priority. When people realise the long term effects of Fukushima and the total increase in long term radiation on the planet, clean food will become a premium.

Our Govts over the decades have sold us out to The Globalists who want drastic reductions in the pop of the planet so they can have absolute over control everyone.

Does anybody have any idea what the NSA would do with my emails, which are largely either work-related (boringly so, I'm not in a position of authority and I work for a private firm) or correspondence with one of the sites which sometimes publish my inestimably valuable (but not private) thoughts or other mundane correspondence.

In other words, why do I care whether they look? After all, they're a big anonymous organisation and I'm a small anonymous individual. To use a term from accoustics, there's an impedance mismatch

I'm somewhat committed to a libertarian ideal, but I'm not sure that privacy is a libertarian necessity. being able to act at will is not of necessity reliant on privacy, although it may be if the intent is to gain a commercial or other advantage through surprise, which is a separate issue.

If the loss of privacy also implies a loss of autonomy, I'd be interested in the reasoning as to why.

Some inconvenient statistics.

An interesting article from Glen Greenwald yesterday http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism . Greenwald is the journalist who Edward directly provided all the CIA details and NSA documents.

In the article Greenwald presents stats on the percentage (of US voters polled) finding the NSA surveillance programs "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable".

According to the figures:

- in January 2006 51% of US voters polled found the NSA surveillance programs Acceptable and 47% Unacceptable.

- in June 2013 56% found the programs Acceptable and 41% Unacceptable.

I don't know what this increase in Acceptability of the NSA programs suggests. Perhaps the Boston bombings have had an impact on public views and fears.

Snowden reveals Britain spying on delegates at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/uk-intelligence-agencies-spy-commonwealth-delegates

Given the meetings are close warm, nostalgic and drawn together by trust in the British connection this Snowden revelation, supported by Top Secret UK powerpoints, is a worry.

Evidence Britain spied on Commonwealth delegates PCs and phones, then by implication sharing the intelligence produced with the US, won't improve relations in the Commonwealth.

The next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was in Perth, 2011.

Anti
You raise an interesting perspective but as I see it the importance of privacy is inherent in the principles of democracy.

There are legal frameworks that protect citizens from renegade governments and agencies. One way is to limit those agencies which require them, for example, to obtain warrants for surveillance only for those who are considered suspect from other available evidence.

Warrantless surveillance ignores this by assuming the right to trawl through the private emails, phone records, and online activity of every citizen without scrutiny. The scraping of data in this way by the NSA is illegal under the 4th Amendment (albeit there may be differing views on what is considered 'reasonable').

These legal protections are there to prevent abuse by governments and by other groups who may have the ear of government. The difference between dicatorsips and democracies is the containment of government to within certain parameters that allow people the freedom to go about their business unmonitored by big brother. It is about potential for abuse

Developments in Snowden-NSA-GCHQ case:

22 June 2013 US charges Edward Snowden with "Theft of Government Property", "Unauthorized communication of National Defense Information Information" and "Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23012317

22 June 2013 SMH “London: British spies are running an online eavesdropping operation so vast that internal documents say it even outstrips the United States' international internet surveillance effort, The Guardian newspaper says. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/snowden-files-show-massive-uk-spying-op-20130622-2ooyr.html#ixzz2Ww3Z43jI "

17 June 2013 - Edward Snowden downloading and having published UK GCHQ Top Secret docs causes major embarrassment to the US’s major ally (the UK). The UK Government issues a “D-notice” recommending the UK media not print or place on internet US and UK secrets: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

A cautionary tale for the Australian government:

"The NSA Has No Idea How Much Secret Data Edward Snowden Took, And That Has Them Very Worried" http://au.businessinsider.com/nsa-secret-data-snowden-took-worried-2013-6

Suggesting governments should avoid user (even network security administrator) access to mass classified databases.

Downloading should be made laborious (even to respond to political requests) and some downloading patterns should trigger red flags...

The Sydney Morning Herald article "Snowden leaks may embarrass Canberra" of June 26, 2013 is unusually revealing about the damage Snowden is doing to America's allies, so far mainly the UK.

Unlike the US Australia has very limited power to drive international political and media debates for damage control. Hence http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/snowden-leaks-may-embarrass-canberra-20130625-2ov4l.html#ixzz2XIIyDcSC :

"Defence intelligence officials speaking on condition of anonymity have acknowledged there had been "intense exchanges" on Mr Snowden's disclosures through liaison channels between the US National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency and Australia’s intelligence agencies.

..."The US may be able to brush aside some of the diplomatic fallout from the Snowden leak, but that may not be the case for Australia. China, Malaysia, other countries may respond to us in ways that they would not to Washington."

While doing nothing for the American people and its allies Snowden is proving a great asset to China and now Russia. But can he tolerate Putin's freedoms?