- They will be as effective in preventing serious crime as they have been elsewhere in the world, which is to say, not a calculable bit. Minority Report hopes for predictive analysis came to nothing in Germany where the crime clearance rate rose by a fuzzy 0.06% before the laws were trashed as a rights violation.
- They are a rights violation. The “I’m not doing anything illegal, ergo I have nothing to worry about” line of argument not only discounts Malcolm’s passionate defence of “our dreams” but The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One might not be doing anything illegal, but one might certainly doing something embarrassing that could cause real impediment if exposed. I, for example, fear the revelation of my most regular running route -- and our location information counts as metadata -- would have me sent to a gardening rehabilitation program. It’s nobody’s business how often I jog to Bunnings. It’s between me and Greg in the mulch aisle.
- They are thought of by our Prime Minister, despite his current presentations, as hooey.
The nightmare of anxiety that’s all your fault
Australia has accepted the watchful eye of the master for so long that we don't know how to do anything else.
not yet practically possible for the majority of internet service providers to comply with this numb and expensive assault, it is still a good a day to think about taking action to retain our privacy. If you remain unsure about how to do this, you could take some of Bernard Keane’s guidance on drawing the curtains. You could think about joining a group committed to the defence of digital freedom. Or you could just heed Malcolm Turnbull’s advice and take protection from the terrible thinking that would eventually become Malcolm Turnbull’s law. In opposition, Turnbull stated the fundamental need we have to “dream our own dreams, undirected by governments, and claim more than any generation before us, our birthright as free men and free women”. As is well known by critics of metadata retention, Turnbull gave over the 2012 Alfred Deakin Lecture to unambiguous resistance of what was then ALP policy. As communications minister, Turnbull was pretty frank about the folly of the laws that might cost some small providers their business and all Australians the loss of a life left reasonably overlooked. When speaking with David Speers this year -- you might remember him as the Sky News anchor who admirably provoked George Brandis’ most chaotic vomit to date on the matter of data -- Turnbull admitted what reasonable critics of the laws had been saying for some time: “There are always ways for people to get around things,” he said, in answer to a question about the effectiveness of the legislation in stopping serious crime. Moreover, he went on to explain the ways one could avoid detection, and even admitted to his personal taste for encryption. As Prime Minister, Turnbull is no doubt very embarrassed and making every effort to thwart the laws that took effect under his leadership. We can no longer “dream our own dreams” but live in a mild nightmare of anxiety that one of our infractions with a council bin will be dumped all over our future. Those of us who have taken even mild interest in the passage of these laws know very well that they will not stop serious crime. We know that those terrorists and child pornographers the policy class tends to evoke whenever some nonsense needs to be quickly sold are even more encrypted than Malcolm. “There are always ways for people to get around things.” If we have been at all engaged with the formation of these laws we know: