An interesting and thought-provoking article.
The problem, of course, is that for many/most Australians, security appears the more pressing need than liberty. Having taken their freedom for granted for so long, I don't think most people even give it a thought.
Since for most their freedom has not been bought with an (obvious) price they esteem it as naught and it will only be recognised once it is completely gone.
If we do not stand up and defend basic rights of speech et al when we don't need it - and even when we disagree with the speech and/or the speaker - the right will be gone when we do need it.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

The government does not own me like I am a possession.
It has no right to invade my home without a warrant and without showing cause.
It has no right to tell me where I can and cant go on the planet.
It has no right to imprison me without charge.
Tony Abbot thinks we live in North Korea.
Its not my fault he allowed all these kinds of people from overseas into the country.
And its not my fault his foreign policy is aligned with the US and western imperial interests which have made this country a target for terrorism.
He should think about locking himself, Julia Bishop and every other politician in the country up for the choices they have made that has brought this upon us before he starts looking at the rest of us.
Stay out of the Middle East and stop aligning ourselves with US interests in the region, simple.
I look at the root cause of the problem when thinking about a solution.
Locking up foolish individuals isn't a long term solution and does nothing for the people responsible to take responsibility.
All because they seek more power for themselves by having closer ties with people from the US.
Its selfish and treasonous to the citizens of this country.
Do we all realise that China's military might will surpass the US at around 2017?
And China owns 95% of mineral rights in this country.
Do you think they wont try to defend their interests if something bad happens?

Poirot
While ever you lack any consistent principle for deciding whether government should, or not should not, be doing any particular thing, it just means you're floundering around in double standards and self-contradictions. Unlike the term left wing, which both leftists and non-leftists use consistently to mean those advocating public control of the means of production, right wing has no consistent meaning and is used to mean the fundamentally different and radically opposed philosophies of national socialists, neo-conservatives, classical liberals, liberertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

Thinking of left and right as intrinsically opposed is fine when we're talking about anatomy. In politics, it only denotes ignorance and confusion. You would be fine with invading Iraq if your beloved Labor party were doing it. Unlike you, I'm consistently in favour of liberty. You can't decide whether you believe in unlimited government power, or not, and when challenged either come down on the side of totalitarianism ever time, or go quiet and run away.

So ... is it okay to threaten to attack people if it's government doing it, or not?

Yes Tony has signed us up to the all-encompassing shadow world of the US created Intelligence Labyrinth as described in the latest essay on TomDispatch.
An all-encompassing constantly morphing fractalizing labyrinth that George Orwell could not have even begun to imagine.
And of course the loyal "opposition" has not opposed any of it.

JKJ,

"....You would be fine with invading Iraq if your beloved Labor party were doing it...."

Wrong!

Good article, and very nicely written, drawing the clear links between freedom of speech, freedom of action, and privacy.

Both the political left and right have behaved shamefully on this issue, so keen to curtail freedoms they disapprove of, that they are willing to sacrifice those they value.