The spectre of 'Big Brother' is always unsettling. No one wants the anyone to intrude in their private life. I would certainly not want cameras and microphones in my shower!

But David is not suggesting this. His article states that "The Bill will allow the government to read our private emails, SMSs and other stored communications, without our knowledge".

The truth is that, at least for international traffic, they have been doing this for years. Echelon was a collaborative Western Governments eavesdropping system that flagged key words on voice and data communication for later inspection by Intelligence Agencies.

Thanks to David, it is now "With our Knowledge"!!

I'm sure that the bad-guys have already worked out sets of coded phrases to out-wit the government anyway. Simple example would be using the phase "G'day Mate" instead of "Hello Mate". The first may mean "They're onto me, stay low", the second may be "Proceed as planned", and "Hi Mate" might mean "Do Nothing".

David's assertion stems from an assumption that telephone SMS broadcasts and the Internet are private communications. Since when did the internet become private? As soon as you log into the Internet you may as well be yelling from the roof-tops. We may take measures to help protect our privacy, but as soon as you send an email, browse a web page, or even chat - you are out there. Everyone, including OLO, now has to confirm your email, even the free email accounts need a valid ISP provided address.

Like the overwealming majority of Australians, I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm sure the government doesn't have enough staff to monitor all the boring emails that I may produce, "How's your mum?, What's the weather like? blah blah blah".

It took 2 people to write that!

Williams and Hume must have something to hide. 99.9% of us have nothing to hide, and anyone who thinks he or she, as innocent people, will be subject to any surveillance has a severe case of big-headeness. ASIO doesn't have the resources or time to listen in to any more conversations than it absoultely has to.

If 'innocent' people who just happen to be speaking to or emailing a person of interest to the security services is also dragged into the net, well, stagger me! Anyone who associates with a criminal now, knowingly or unknowingly, is automatically checked out. If they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about.

This is just another lefty beat up.

I totally understand the logic of their arguments, and they are correct if one ignores context, which one clearly can't do.

The western world's reckless immigration programs have given rise to a situation - due to their improper & weak screening, where we have those from uncivilised cultures now living among us, those who are nothing short of NAZI's (although worse because how they see themselves as superior is bizarre, wheraes one can see how the Germans perhaps thought they were in WW2. They had culture, real culture, not superficial gunk of a particular plate of food & a dress or a dance, they had philosophers, scientists, artists, entertainment, and were at the forefront of all these areas. They're only problem is that they got carried away with aesthetics, it's not what colour you are, or whether you think white people look more attractive, it's what your culture is, what your values are) with their views on becoming an Islamic state.

Now, although most Muslims are content just to wish for Sharia law to be imposed here (as Muslims believe Sharia is divinely inspired & must be taken to the whole earth), there are some Muslims who really do adhere to their religion to the letter and wish to destroy non-Muslims.

Phones need to be tapped, emails monitored, and while this could be used against the people by an unscroupolous authority, this is the price we must pay for having uncivilised beings among us.

Japan, for example, will never need to worry about this as they don't have an immigration program.

I think the laws don't go far enough, I think all mosques should be monitored, legally or illegally, and I believe homes of prominent Muslim leaders should be bugged - to get their "real" thoughts, although we know these anyway from comments they have made in the media, such as Keysar Trad saying Australians are convict scum.

The issue isn't about whether you have anything to hide, the issue is whether authorities ought to have the power to poke about in your affairs without a substantial reason to do so.

Most people assume that their communications with another person are private - particularly where it is a one-to-one conversation - regardless of *how* that conversation is conducted. To discover that someone has been 'listening in' on those conversations usually results in a strong feeling of violation. Certainly thats the experience of everyone I know who has either been subjected to surveillance of some kind, or colleagues who have also had clients who were subjected to surveillance.

There is a fine line between state security and state curiosity, with plenty of scope on the legitimate security interests side of the ledger for authorities to work with. The concern for lawyers is the potential not only for misuse of surveillance, but equally for the integrity of legal and judicial processes themselves.

I haven't posted in this forum for ages because I wasn't interested in the muslim v's non-muslim debate.

It's managed to rear it's head in here again and at first I thought "it's irrelevant", but then I realised that the fear generated by the Government on the public about terrorism from Muslims enables the Government to justify its ever-increasing powers and coverage of BigBrotherism.

Benjamim - Big Brother is rubbing his hands together with glee whenever he reads blogs like yours. You are feeding a big fat over-fed paranoid monster that one day will turn around and gobble you up. You are obviously prepared to "pay the price" by forfeiting your privacy - it's easy to say if you're paranoid and scared about everything anyway. You have nothing to lose.

It's the insidious way this "surveillance" has crept into our lives. It's been a slow gradual process of us accepting it, little by little. Even to the point of having a defeatist attitude that if we've got nothing to hide, then it's nothing to worry about. Well we might as well all walk around naked then. Stuff the old personal space & privacy.

It's true that the "bad guys" will only work out a way around it. That won't change. All the new legislation will do is provide the means to make them more sneaky about it.

I know a guy whose job is to "vet" emails in and out of his organisation. He doesn't like doing it because it involves reading his co-workers emails which, even though may not be private, is still voyeuristic. However, he does it because it's legal and it's his job.

No doubt if we continue to be complacent about this issue, then one day it'll be ok to listen in to your colleague's telephone conversations and read their text messages. And no doubt someone will try and tell me that's it's all for the security of our country and that I should have to accept it if I have nothing to hide.

Judging by the emails above, the winds have changed since the torrent of fear and gloom from OLO posters regarding the major Terrorism Bills passed late last year. Something to do with the arrest of the terrorism suspects in Sydney and Melbourne?

Regarding Hume and Williams article this Interception Bill has, in fact, been under public scruitiny since mid February 2006 when it was introduced into Parliament.

For a more positive view see the Age of 15 February 2006 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/police-to-get-power-to-tap-the-innocent/2006/02/14/1139890738796.html

Snippets include:

"[The legislation's] main thrust is to modernise surveillance by formalising the power of police and intelligence agencies to examine suspects' phone messages and emails and other such "stored communications" — which were not invented when the original law was passed in 1979.

"...The law would give them the power to monitor the phone of a person who might contact the suspect or who might be contacted by the suspect.

The warrant to do so would be issued by a judge under strict conditions, the spokeswoman said.

The police would be able to leave the tap in place for 45 days and ASIO for 90 days.

The warrant would be issued only in investigations of crimes carrying at least a seven- year sentence and would by issued in very limited circumstances.

"They would also have to show that they have exhausted all other avenues for tracking their suspect," the spokeswoman said."

It seems to give legal clarity (and stong legal limits) to what has already been happening on a less formal basis.

I also think the renewed emphasis on SMS and internet text records is because they would be more compelling as evidence in court than contentious voice transcripts.

Monkey see, monkey do, George Dubbya does it, we follow like the loyal Deputy Sherrif we are, yankeeland say's jump, we ask "how high Sir!"

To the authors

Thank you for your article. You have provided a good "think tank".

Initially, you totally hooked me in. But then I reflected: surely this sort of thing has been going on for years without our overt knowledge and without legal parameters?

Thank you to all posters

I have found all responses worthy of thought - especially yours Lisamaree. Even so, I cannot imagine the Government being the least bit interested in me or any of my communications.

I assume the same Bill will apply to all politicians, Federal Police, and members of Asio?

Cheers all
Kay

kalweb

Yes it applies to State and Federal Police Forces and ASIO.

It presumably also applies to the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) whose legislative and technical role in domestic interception never gets mentioned - verboten.

Alas. Nothing applies to politicians. They can break national security laws with impunity eg when:

- Abbott published some of Cheryl Kernot's private tax file arrangements just before an election (to discredit Kernot), or

- Downer ('s Office) desseminated Andrew Wilkie's secret ONA assessment on WMDs to the odd MP (etc) to discredit Wilkie.

Planta
aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete

Interesting post mate. But why doesn't the proposed Bill apply to politicians (and their family and friends presumably)? If that is the case, I want it stopped, but how?

Cheers
Kay

Leigh,

"...anyone who thinks he or she, as innocent people, will be subject to any surveillance has a severe case of big-headeness. ASIO doesn't have the resources or time to listen in to any more conversations than it absoultely has to."

This comment shows a real lack of knowledge about modern technology. ASIO won't have to read every email or listen to every phone call, they have software that'll do this for them; software that will watch and listen for key words.

Let's say I send you an email containing the following paragraph...

...In regards to the game in Canberra, we bombed. My performance through the whole match was weak but I knew I'd explode in the final minutes...
CANBERRA, BOMBED, EXPLODE...Bingo! We have a suspect. Our emails and phone conversations are then monitored by people who have no right to do so.

Saying that people must have something to hide if they reject this kind of legislation is just lazy logic.

None of this has anything to do with our security and everything to do with control and power. This kind of legislation is only ever introduced so that eventually (given time and more legislation) we all become a bunch of mindless slaves with no hopes or aspirations - a very good way to control a nation of people don't you think?

I envy people of the older generations such as yourself. You must have grown-up in such innocent times to have such an inability to see the real reason as to why politicians do what they do.

Leigh and Jinx there are very good reasons for the government to stay out of peoples lifes.

For example, in 10 years time that the war on terror gets out of hand and all muslims are to be interned. Not likely but this is exact;y what happened in WWI and WWII.

However next week a boy falls in love with a muslim girl at school. Madly in love he start his conversion, a year later he meets someone else and gives up. Now in today's climate that is nothing to hide but in the above future case he could find himself in a whole lot of trouble.

We are lucky that we have had reasonable government (for non aborigines) for the last 100 years. However we should always be on guard and not make assumtions about future governments.

Say a populist politician emerges and creates a new party. The potential MPs haven't gone through the usual years party politicking, scrutiny and preselection so there are likely to be a fair share of crooks and opportunists. Once in government they get rid of the populist leader and hijack the political agenda. It can happen here. Don't be complacent.

gusi,
good advice, advise that at least 100 Australian's this week who have been unfairly sacked should have taken on board, the "she'll be right mate" approach no longer applies. With authoritian governments such as the current one, we need to stay vigilant.

While I am concerned about the matters at hand .... who is this spooky pete?

Bejamin,

Good, straight talking. The people who are squealing about surveillance now are the same people who support the idiotic, suicidal policy of multiculturalism and daft politicians who foisted it on us in an anti-democratic way.

Jinx,

Had you been part of my generation you would not have had the dream ride you have enjoyed. If you had experience some of the wars, both cold and actual, you would not now be talking such twaddle and attempting, in your juvenile way, to denigrate older, more experienced people. You might know more than I do about technology, sonny, but you certainly know nothing about life.

as usual these discussion get muddied by the myth of the power of so called Islamo-fascism and all other manner of half baked theories about islamism and terrorism.

The bottom line for most of us who dont walk around looking over our shoulders, and Benjamin seems to be in the top ten of ticket holders to that nervous association, is that the government has no business knowing any thing about our affairs unless there is due cause - B-Parties or not.

If anyone for a moment thinks that information turned up via the investigation of a third party inadvertantly linked to a so called person of interest will be destroyed or not preserved for later reference then they are a fool - but then that is proved to be self evident here in post after post by those who seem to think the government is wise and or knows things that we dont know and we are best kept in the dark for our safety and that of the nation.

Some where some one said that the people should not be scared of the government but the government should be scared of the people. This and other measures are one attempt to turn the sense of that statement on its head.

- these measures along with plausible deniability by contemporary politicians,limited ministerial responsibility and fogging the provisions of FOI legislations - privately run immigrant gulags, the AWB and Peter Costellos recent stone walling of FOI requests from the Australian (PC has issued a concluisive certificate on documents relating to the first home buyers scheme, speaking of having nothing to hide) all come to mind and add to the diminshed mechanisms where by an oppositions and the electorate can get at or rid of inept incumbents.

There is a higher order issue here that transcends those of terorrism and the need for surveillance but there are too many Australians who have been so frightened as to be shivering under the bed covers to peek out and see the real threat - that is government hubris and control.

lisamaree is angry that we are talking about Muslims again.

you serious? IS ONLY reason ASIO has tripled in size, thanks to your tax dollars, to watch a community that, although it makes up 2% of population, are leading cause of crime - ranging from street thuggery toorganised syndicates, as well as the terrorism part, just icing on cake really.

Where do you live? If you think that this discussion shouldn't involve Muslims I mean? Obviously not in Sydney.

What, should ASIO watch Methodists, or Protestants instead?

Come on.

It was “Harmony Day” recently, a day where Australians of all colours & creeds celebrate our diversity, and the harmonious multicultural society in which we live. Is this meant to be a joke?

in only past two weeks, drive-by shootings in and around the Greenacre and Bankstown areas almost every night, with a double shooting murder in Granville on Wednesday night. There have been about a dozen armed robberies where the assailants were of middle-eastern appearance, and there was of course the Bulldogs crowd violence.

Behind the scenes, ASIO has had to triple its size so it can watch the middle-eastern community, unemployment is high, and their organised crime syndicates make up about 30% of the market, astonishing for a population of just 2%.

The xenophobic nature of the middle-eastern community ensures that police have no chance of identifying the criminals who bashed & stabbed scores of innocent people in military style raids after the Cronulla riots, which was a reaction to the years of sexual harassment, intimidation, and racist bashings. There are Muslim women swimming lessons, and they’ve petitioned the RTA to stay open after hours so they can take their veils off without infidels present. We see stories on current affairs shows of Muslims who fear their own families will kill them because they are having a relationship with a non-Muslim.

You can have all the picnics with ethnic & religious leaders you want, but engaging in the superficial by sharing plates of food and watching cultural dances does absolutely nothing to change the xenophobia

This is an excellent article. These laws that the Howard government is pursuing have nothing to do with national security. They are about this government attempting to suppress and control information.
The Howard government does not uphold the democractic values of freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to dissent. As a christian I can say that these laws have little to do with monitoring the Islamic community in Australia, or monitoring terrorism. They are about control. I know for a fact that western/christian writers, documentary makers, and journalists in Australia have been intimidated, harrassed, vilified, and threatened by officers of the federal Attorney Generals Office, for producing Intellectual Property on September 11th, Iraq, and the west's involvement in these issues.
One Australian documentary maker/journalist, a well known woman, had her personal computers destroyed with a sledgehammer and threatened with 7 years prison if she continued with the documentary. She did, to her credit, and it was broadcast on the ABC last year and can be purchased in Dymocks Bookstore.
Australians wake up. This government is evil and as a western christian writer, I have nothing to hide, a duty to research and write about all sorts of social and political issues, and yet I would probably be vilified in the same manner as others have been under this government. This article highlights the need for more Australians to articulate to preserve democratic values in Australia. And if people continue to support this government, we will not be living in a democracy for much longer.
Teresa van Lieshout
http://teresavanlieshout.tripod.com/
http://theaustraliaparty.tripod.com/

Dear sneekeepete

Funny you should ask who spooky pete is. I'm the the same person as plantagenet.

I recognise and respect OLO's policy of anonymity. This encourages the democratic right of free speech.

If you want to know more about me read my blog "Spooky Pete" at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

I look forward to comments from Australians (my own country) as I receive most comments from Americans from further left than you and several rightwingers. Comments have also come from India, an Egyptian (driven from Egypt as he was too Islamic it seems) and from Pakistan (his blog was blocked in Pakistan over the Cartoons Crisis).

On my blog see "View my complete profile."

which contains "As a former "insider" the Posts and followup Comments in this blog aim to give people some idea what spying is about and how amoral realpolitik is. I'm a cynical centrist - who feels that truth is dictated by political objectives. Intelligence agencies are as benign (or malevolent) as their political bosses."

You can draw your own conclusions as to my background and motivations.

I'm not an employee or paid by any government but I know a great deal more about intelligence than I'll ever reveal in print.

kalweb

Politicians are not immmune as potential "B-parties" for interception under the bill. I just mean't that they could as likely as not use the records of an interception of a B-party in order to discredit the B-party. These records could perhaps be revealed in Parliament under the immunity of Parliamentary privilege.

That risk is there but I still think the bill is a positive step forward against the higher national security risks we face (which "coincidentally" are in proportion to Islamic extremism).

Planta

"Pete"

If you really are a "spy" - why are you on this forum? You crack me up!

Cheers
Kay

Plantagenet:

first you say that intelligence agencies are as benign (malevolent) as their political bosses, then later on you say the bill is a positive step forward against national security risk? Seems like a contradiction to me.

Benjamin:

I can't claim to be an expert on what Muslims do or don't do. I can only go on my own personal experiences and the muslims that I interact with. But I can see you are very much obsessed with it and judging by your posts on other threads, I respecfully suggest you get some professional counselling.

If ASIO has tripled in size thanks to my tax dollars (your words), then I should have a say in what my money is spent on. But I don't. A previous poster suggested 'multiculturalism' has been 'foisted upon us in an un-democratic way'. Well so has this encroachment upon my privacy.

And ps..I do live in Sydney.

The EXCUSE of terrorism has deceived many people to believe increasing Government powers somehow protects and serves us, siting the interests of national security to fast-track new Legislations.
Do YOU realise why many millions are spent on counter-terrorism?
Think like a gangster, they impose dictatorship to have their way and use other people’s money, to protect THEM and crush rebels.
I certainly, am not gullible to think I will be a "bomb" victim in Australia, unless I agreed to follow America into a deceitful war of POWER.
Messages like this will soon have repercussions when our Gangsters in Parliament impose their power to silence and detain dissidents.

The ONLY terror we should all fear is loosing our RIGHTS and the ability challenge the WRONGS

Teresa van Lieshout:

Well said........Take care. Regards............

Kay

I'm indeed NOT a spy. So that allows me to write comments on OLO.

But I take agreements I've signed seriously enough to be vague on my "career" over a decade ago.

Most posters in this string appear to be ideologically or religeously dead against intelligence agencies and have no idea how much worse "successful" terrorist acts would be. I'm "lucky" enough to have seen the other side of the story.

This allows me some insight to criticize the frequent politicisation of intelligence assessments and some sympathy for the spooks who do a very frustrating, often lonely and boring, sometimed dangerous, but a necesary job.

BENJAMIN

I'm with ya mate. Don't be put off by the wets or pacifists in this string. They may have lofty aspirations or pessimistic fears but the smell of burnt flesh after a bomb blast in an Australian city would have them nailing ASIO for not doing enough, not anticipating the threat and demanding (for the 50th time) Ruddock's resignation.

While I think you go too far "all mosques should be monitored, legally or illegally, and I believe homes of prominent Muslim leaders should be bugged." I reckon your views have more sense, facts and logic than the alienated majority in this string.

Sneekeepete

Keep firing away. I genuinely appreciate comments from people (like you) whose heart is in the right place, even if we can't agree on much.

Planta
also known as (aka) Spooky Pete
at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

I believe that the government has definitely gone too far with this one. In the future if they begin to monitor our private calls, text messages and emails how do they expect the few terrorists in Australia (if there are any at all) to be so stupid to even send an email saying lets blow up a landmark?? I certainly don't think the government will find anything if they do start it except for “hey, what are you up to on the weekend?" and such comments definitely WON'T help them into arresting potential terrorists!

justagirl

I'm not going to attempt to answer your broad assumptions and rhetorical questions.

Interception/bugging has been an international practice since 1914. So "cops and robbers" take it for granted.

Lets just say past terrorists in Australia have not relied on carrier pigeons.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Thanks diver dan....
regards, Teresa.

ASIO and the AFP have sufficent powers already. Look at the combination of the new IR laws, the extension of Defence powers at times of an emergency and you have ingredients for increasing totalitatrianism

Well they will be now as the site is getting over 10,000 hits a day for the past 2 weeks and I've replied to 100's of emails some with more to add. Worth a read. Another perspective for you all I hope.

http://www.spectre.net.au