tip off

‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear’: whistleblowers warn of threats to privacy

As cabinet debates data retention laws for Australia, US whistleblowers Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack remind us that “the people are supposed the govern the government, not the other way around”.

With highly contested proposals for increased data retention possibly due before federal cabinet today, last night’s discussion in Sydney by two prominent American whistleblowers was a timely reminder of the dangers of giving governments too much power.

US whistleblower Thomas Drake, a former senior employee of the United States National Security Agency, and Edward Snowden’s US defence lawyer Jesselyn Radack were interviewed by ABC broadcaster Quentin Dempster about the threats to privacy arising from increased digital surveillance. During the event, put on by the Walkley Foundation, they also spoke from a personal viewpoint about the pressures whistleblowers confront in revealing what governments are doing in our name.

Drake said that authority’s common excuse for invading citizens’ privacy — “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” — is thought to have originated with Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Radack concurred, saying that anyone intending to give up their right to privacy could hand her their bank account details and email log-ins. “Privacy is part of individual autonomy and sovereignty, something we supposedly value in a democratic society.”

Both spoke about the unprecedented powers given to security agencies in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Locally, Attorney-General George Brandis and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation head David Irvine have already flagged the threat of local terrorism as justification for an extension of their power to access the communications of Australians.

On top of this, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said last week that he might reverse the onus of proof on people coming back from Syria and Iraq — in that they must show that they are not a terrorist in order to be allowed back into the country. Some experts have said privately that this proposal, which contradicts basic legal principles, had been put forward in order to make the data retention laws look reasonable.

Drake said no one was disputing the fact that there were “clear and present threats” to national security. “But you don’t need to wiretap the world to find them.” The irony is that in any number of terrorism instances, the system failed, Radack said, citing as an example the Boston Marathon bombing going ahead despite clear warnings. In addition, the Edward Snowden disclosures showed that out of 54 terrorist events, only one of those might have been able to be thwarted by the use of intelligence. All the other instances, such as the Shoebomber and the Underpants Bomber, were discovered by “very alert passengers rather than security screenings in the US”.

Although both the American and Australian governments claim to be collecting “metadata” — which is the numbers or email addresses you are calling and emailing, not the content of those messages — this is irrelevant, Radack said. “If I call an abortion clinic, suicide prevention line or Alcoholics Anonymous, you have an idea of what I’m calling about.”

Drake, a decorated US air force and navy veteran, was charged in 2011 by the US government for blowing the whistle on massive multibillion-dollar fraud, waste and abuse at the NSA, as well as the widespread violations of the rights of citizens through secret mass surveillance programs. They dropped their case against him the night before it was going to court in exchange for him pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count of exceeding authorised use of a computer.

Last night, Drake said that “the truth-tellers, the whistleblowers and the hacktivists are canaries in the coal mine of democracy. If we do not have rights such as privacy, then citizens are the subjects of the state, not free beings.” Radack agreed, saying that the “American constitution is designed to protect people from their own government. The people are supposed to govern the government, not the other way around.”

5
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    There’s something about this “Trust Big Brother” argument, whenever I hear them mouth “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” - so why do they hate the likes of Snowden, Assange and other whistleblowers?

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    I can see the Abbott questionnaire now - “When did you stop being a terrorist?”

  • 3
    Yclept
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    If it’s so clear cut why doesn’t business and government like their data to be revealed, why is everything so super secret. Hey Tony why won’t you reveal the donations to your party when they happen - nothing to hide???

  • 4
    Margot Saville
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    great comments, thanks. Yes, Yclept, that’s a very good point. I’m going to NSW ICAC tomorrow where that whole question of the transparency of political donations will be front and centre..

  • 5
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    The 2005-7 Customs whistle blower case was opened & closed by the Crown admitting that their entire case was based on the circumstantial evidence (two phone calls - without bothering to prove their origin or destination) and the jury of 12 peers agreed.
    When the only tool is a hammer, too much looks like a nail.
    We should not be mollified and comforted by the neologism metadata, aka ‘circumstantial evidence’.
    As the ex head of the NSA said recently, “we kill people on the basis of metadata”. aka ‘circumstantial evidence’.
    When the only tool is a hammer, too much looks like a nail.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...