Jul 13, 2012

Why has the Right gone missing on the surveillance state?

When Labor finally unveils a genuine threat to civil rights, its usual critics have fallen silent. Why?

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

It took a while but Fairfax finally lumbered into action today on the remarkable proposals to dramatically expand government surveillance of Australians that are before the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, editorialising that intelligence agencies needed to explain why they want to retain Australians' internet data, after its security specialist Dylan Welch had covered the proposals yesterday. Yesterday the ABC also provided some detailed coverage; every specialist IT outlet had already covered the proposals in detail on Tuesday and Wednesday, after Crikey broke the proposals on Monday afternoon. A quick reprise of the proposals: the government wants to undertake some sensible housekeeping amendments relating to ASIO, the establishing legislation for which is showing some definite whiskers. But the government has also put on the table, for consideration, proposals including:
  • keeping all Australians' telecommunications and internet data for 2 years;
  • wiretapping Twitter, Facebook and other social media;
  • allowing ASIO to plant material on people's computers, and destroy material, and go through a third party's computer to do so;
  • criminalise refusing to cooperate with government decryption attempts, so you could go to gaol for refusing to surrender your password;
  • freeing up ASIO agents to break the law if it helps them stay undercover; and
  • enabling non-ASIO intelligence agencies to work with ASIO to spy on Australians.
News Ltd's papers, apart from recycling a single AAP piece today, have said nothing, a failure that is thoroughly perplexing. Here is a Labor government proposing draconian extensions to surveillance powers. What better opportunity for the bastion of "campaigning journalism" that loves nothing more than monstering Labor? There isn't even a need to confect a target for a campaign, as News Ltd did with the BER program And yet... silence. It's all the more bizarre given the company is in the throes of a furious campaign against the alleged threat of government regulation to freedom of speech. If News Ltd and its dimwit spear-carriers like Janet Albrechtsen are to be believed, the proposals arising from the Convergence Review and the Finkelstein Inquiry are only one step short of Soviet re-education camps. Yet Labor wheels out a real threat to free speech far more sinister than a mere public interest test -- our intelligence agencies, after all, have a sterling record of spying on journalists -- and... nothing. How about the Institue of Public Affairs, who can normally be relied on to stand up free speech and attack regulatory overreach... or for that matter regulatory reach full stop? Not a squeak. The issue was considered unworthy of the institute's weekly round-up of left-wing outrages. How about Andrew Bolt, who if nothing else is hyper-sensitive to parliamentary threats to free speech, having been the victim of an appalling legal assault on his own? Nothing. Why has the Right gone missing on a clear and present threat to basic rights? Where's the mistrust of government and readiness to go over the top when we actually need it in response to a clear and present danger? Is it because the issue of online freedom is somehow perceived to be one of the Left, despite its strong libertarian dimensions? You don't need to be of any particular political orientation to be offended about these proposals, and offended by the reasoning used to justify them. The justification used in the discussion paper, and it was one repeated by Joint Committee member Andrew Wilkie yesterday, is that our surveillance framework needs to be updated to address the move from the telecommunications to the internet era. That reasoning is, to use my favourite Greinerism, a nonsense. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act hasn't been left gathering dust on the legislative shelf since before the arrival of the internet. It's been updated regularly in the last decade - more years than not have seen an amendment to that act or an extension of ASIO's powers in our parliament. In fact, bizarrely, it's the very frequency with which the acts have been updated that the discussion paper insists is all the more reason for an overhaul (and expansion) of the whole régime (yes, I've thought and re-thought through that and I can't understand it either). The other reason it's a nonsense is a more subtle one that intelligence agencies and politicians neither want to understand nor will accept. The proposals to start wiretapping social media use, store your data, control communications infrastructure and lock you up when you won't cough up the password to your laptop or phone are classic War On The Internet measures. They seek to re-impose analog-era control structures on a world fundamentally altered by interconnectedness. In the analog world of wiretapping telecommunications (which originally was, literally, sticking an alligator clip onto a wire), citizens had virtually no means of communications except a government-controlled telephone system -- recall the grand days of dictatorships shutting down phone lines to the outside world at moments of crisis? There was no network, no connectedness for citizens, because they could never talk to more than one person at a time, making their interaction easy to monitor. That single, controllable piece of copper linking people one at a time has been replaced with a network that connects everyone to everyone else, globally, simultaneously. But governments want to still employ the copper-era control mechanism, as if nothing has changed except the technology. The technological change is trivial compared to the social change being wrought across the world, which those who were in control in the analog era don't understand and want to keep at bay. And the urge to keep control and monitor is coupled with an ever-stronger refusal to share information with citizens; governments want a surveillance state for everyone but themselves; they insist on their own right to operate in secrecy. The luxury of redaction is only for governments, not their citizens. This is far less about being Left or Right than about being wrong, fundamentally wrong, about how our societies and the way we function in them are changing. It's that change these measures are aimed at stopping and controlling.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

79 thoughts on “Why has the Right gone missing on the surveillance state?

  1. geomac62

    The two year storage requirement reminds me of the recent campaign by the copyright mob . They security people already have laws to monitor and gather data on people they suspect so why do they need wider laws on everyone ? Until there is someone or an independent department watching the watchers there should be no extension of their reach . Even then there is no justification for widening their powers . I,m not sure its about security at all because they have already have laws to do their ” job ” . Copyright ?

  2. fred bill

    it’s as thought they think terrorists (and i’m under no illusion that they actually exist in the manner the state wishes us to think) will post their intention as a facebook update. also some of the predictable partisan comments i’ve seen (even linking the greens into it) are just ridiculous, and to see andrew wilkie is having a go trumpeting this so-called “overhaul”, well lets just say the odds are stacked against them not going through.

  3. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    The two years recording of people’s internet traffic is very worrying if some of what is now legal one day becomes illegal.

    We know that Conroy (and Rudd and Gillard) were originally wanting to block all x-rated content as part of their filter.

    Imagine if one day the government not only banned downloading of such content but also possessing it. The government would then have a record of everyone who had legally viewed the content before the change of law. This could lead to it being deemed that it is reasonable to check the computer of some people to ensure that the newly banned content has been deleted or to prosecute those who have not deleted the the content.

    The Alternative Liberal Party (ALP) have made a fuss recently about “Labor values”. I suspect that one reason The Age took so long to report on this is that they don’t want to criticise Labor (and give an example of current Labor values) just before the Melbourne by-election. The story was only covered today because it had become such a major story that they had to cover it.

  4. The Pav

    Just once , I would like the intelligence industry to prove that the infringements of civol liberty has made me safer than if the pre-existing mechanisms had been left in place.

    I am more concerned about ASIO than the Taliban.

    Shame on the ALP the pary of the Murphy Raid.

  5. Down and Out of Sài Gòn

    “Is it because the issue of online freedom is somehow perceived to be one of the Left, despite its strong libertarian dimensions?” Yep. That’s basically it. Free speech for me, but not for thee, says the Right.

  6. Modus Ponens

    Limited News isn’t campaigning on it because they know that the conservatives will back the proposal no questions asked.

    Greens on one side of the House, ALP and tories on the other… a reoccuring motif

  7. David Lilley

    Dear Bernard and others,

    The reason why we hear nothing from many on the right regarding free speech and human rights as laid out in your article is because they actually vehemently believe in the oppression of others’ rights; unless of course it directly affects them (e.g. Andrew Bolt). You only have to look at their track record on Assylum Seekers (or should i say Illegal Immigrants) and workers’ rights to see they don’t much care for anyone who doesn’t see the world their way. So the right will be sitting back scratching their heads as to why Labor is suddenly seeing things their way; ‘the right way’ (pun intended).

  8. Its Business Time

    OK, so what can a lay person do to stop this… Who do we need to contact or is there already an activist site that is fighting this?

  9. lindsayb

    government agents allowed to break laws with impunity, plant “evidence” on “suspects”, gain full access to your computer etc.
    Sounds like the perfect place for a crime boss to set up shop.
    Or a news journalist.

  10. Greg Jones

    The dawning must be awful for people when they wake up that this whole issue is apolitical and nothing to do with Left or Right

    Not a finger lifted by the Liberals, the deafening silence from News Ltd, even Wilkie seems to be giving in, zilch from The IPA….is this Children Of The Corn?

    Draconian security measures are a common thread throughout the whole world and something tells me that if these measures cannot be ushered in through civil, diplomatic methods and political channels, then watch for an event or a series of events of cataclysmic proportions to ensure Job Done. Create the problem provide the fix.

    In this series of articles, Bernard Keane has laid out each case point by point with great context. Tremendous piece.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details