As you read this on your phone or computer, your ISP is doing more than just giving you access to the site.
It’s logged that you’ve visited Crikey’s IP address and how long you spent here, along with some other information like your phone number and location if you’re reading on mobile.
And then it will keep that information for two years in case an Australian government agency wants to view it for any reason, due to the mandatory metadata retention becoming legislative law earlier this year.
Your movement anywhere can now be shared with more than an ISP or telephone provider. It might be the police, ASIO or any number of Australian government agencies currently scrambling to access the data that now doesn’t require a warrant. Thanks to the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance, this information can be shared with the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand.
[Surveillance advocates hit us with their best shot]
Perhaps you’re comfortable with this, perhaps you’re about to reason that if we aren’t doing anything wrong then we have nothing to hide.
Digital Rights Watch decided to test that common rebuttal on Professor Gillian Triggs, former president of the Human Rights Commission and someone who will never be on Senator George Brandis’ Christmas card list.
Monday night in a packed theatre for Melbourne Writers’ Festival, all of Triggs’ personal data was displayed on a giant screen behind her, former senator Scott Ludlam and broadcaster Vanessa Toholka.
Triggs sat and politely smiled as her email details were displayed. From subject line alone, we learnt that she’s looking for a good deal on stationery, where she will deliver speeches, the groups of which she’s a part. Her phone details showed she was in Melbourne, and we could tell who was calling her and, based on their number, surmise what their phone calls were about.
Admittedly, Triggs is a well-known public figure, which means this information could be easily deduced. But does that mean it should be and what is the impact when it is someone who isn’t a public figure, like you (remember, ISP is still running the clock on how long you’re taking to read this article)?
[Stealing your eyeballs: Dutton’s stealthy plan to track you]
It became slightly more uncomfortable when the crowd laughed at the revelation Triggs had applied for a Seniors Card. It’s symbolic of what happens when the banal details of our day can be released: everyday and perfectly legal activities look very different when viewed by others.
Ludlam took that further, quoting Glenn Greenwald’s response to the common “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve nothing to fear” argument. In those moments he simply asks the person to hand over their email password. Feeling uncomfortable with that? Why? You’ve done nothing wrong, surely?
In fact, for anyone who’s ever handed their phone to show a friend a photo and hoped to the heavens above they don’t start scrolling through their camera roll, the distinction is clear: people have a right to choose what information they share without someone taking advantage. And what if that person comes across a legal but embarrassing photo? Do you think they’re capable of not blabbing what they saw everywhere?
No matter how decent (well …) the government may appear, sometimes it is not that capable. Like its inability to conduct a census, protect the names and home country details of 10,000 people seeking asylum in Australia, placing them in danger, or accidentally releasing your Medicare data and your Centrelink data (not just once, twice!) … Let’s get straight to the point: the Australian government wants all of your data but has a very public record of not keeping it private.
Part of this is because it is the government who are defining rules and keeping it “in house” or at the “discretion of ministers”, decried by Triggs as something that would never happen in Europe where the court system keeps things honest or in the US, which has a Bill of Rights.
So, with the government operating beyond the law and stockpiling your data in the cyber equivalent of a sieve and an opposition that hasn’t yet learned that word’s definition: who is going to help you regain your privacy?
It’s you.
Scott Ludlam made it clear: “We need a revolution”.
Part of that is making the cost of accessing your data higher and harder by using encryption wherever possible either through the use of a VPN (Virtual Private Network) or encrypted messaging apps like Signal.
But the other part is standing up and making a ruckus. Put pressure on politicians — the ministers and your local representatives — and let them know to get their hands off your phone and laptop. Learning about your digital rights isn’t complicated, and learning how to protect them and push for change is even easier.
*Amy Gray is a Melbourne-based writer and member of Digital Rights Watch.
Leave a comment
Which is why I pay $3 a month for a VPN.
All a VPN does is spend $3/month and identify you as a person of surveillance interest.
Your reference to the US Bill of Rights and the protection the European courts afford their citizens is very important. The latter do so by virtue of the European Charter of Human Rights and there is a special court to deal with its cases.
Australia is unique among the so-called western democracies in not having any such protections for its citizens. Remedying that deficit must surely be a priority if we are not to fall further and further behind civilised standards. The current direction of Australia is truly frightening as Triggs and others have bravely pointed out. This weeks treatment of asylum seekers is only the latest in a long line of appalling decisions. Given our aspirations to be on the UN Human Rights Committee it can only be viewed as a sick travesty.
Nicely succinct piece.
The analogies of sharing your phone camera roll and email password are especially relatable.
Edward Snowdon – , “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
Totally agree with this article BUT does the Oz public really care? When Brandis introduced the metadata legislation, there was barely a whimper from the media or public.
Metadata legislation initially insisted journo’s would need to release their sources! Where was the usual rabid feverish cries of press freedom and democracy being threatened? Media organisations addressed releasing journalist’s sources via quiet backroom negotiations that culminated in select Govt agencies needing a judge’s warrant.
It is deeply saddening we give away our privacy to government’s so easily, after so many have fought to develop and preserve it.
Ahem….make that Snowden. – BUT what a great quote!
He would be fiercely critical of handing over your data and allowing insecure Comms Co’s to store it for 2 years, with an ever broadening group of Govt agencies and 5 eyes intelligence agencies accessing it.
The only chance we, the People, have is to advocate a “free market”(HA!) solution to the misuse of our data.
We cannot uninvent the technology and few of us would or could do without our toys – can it really only be less than 20 years since the Net & phones became, not so much ubiquitous but indispensable?
The only counter I can see is the equivalent of charging for the copyright of our data – there should be a compact that the one person who is entitled to full and total disclosure of all that is held is the owner.
A digital ID card as it were.
We can’t stop Them harvesting our data but we can make sure that we know what/when/why & wherefore and be able to demand to see it.
BTW, lest anyone imagine that the Alternative Liberal Party will do anything about this in our interest, remember that which party amongst those not raising a whimper when the legislation was passed was complicit in voting for it.