In the early hours of this morning I spoke with Rod Quinn on ABC Overnights about what exactly is metadata in light of current Australian government plans to mandate a data retention law for internet service providers.
Part of the problem in the debate is defining exactly what metadata is, something I’ve attempted to do previously.
The attempt to bring clarity to the discussion isn’t being helped by the confusing explanations of politicians as shown in this interview with Malcolm Turnbull, the communications minister, shows.
One of the things that kept coming up in the conversation, which we hope to have available shortly, was people who have nothing to hide should have nothing to fear.
These two videos — Don’t Talk To Cops Parts I and II — feature a law professor and police prosecutor speaking about how innocent people can be caught out by the law.
First the law professor;
Then the police prosecutor;
A question the law professor asks, “did you know it’s a Federal offence to posses a lobster?” The answer is ‘yes’ and in every country there’s almost no way any individual can be confident they haven’t committed a crime under some obscure or archaic law.
This is why an adult discussion on laws that change the burden of proof and how government agencies conduct themselves is important.
Another key point from this morning’s conversation is how we need to reconsider the boundaries of privacy and personal information.
I really don’t think we can just take it for granted, as suggested above, that anyone with nothing to hide has nothing to fear from increased surveillance, security measures, and the like. This would seem to be based on the assumption that governments, politicians, and other public officials always behave fairly and honourably and legally, and ignores the possibility that corrupt or possibly incompetent office-holders may use information to persecute certain people unfairly. For instance, I think there have been times when communist or socialist activists have been the subject of much attention from security agencies, despite their pursuit of legal activities in a country that supposedly allows freedom of expression. Also, close surveillance of certain people may reveal private information about them that involves perfectly legal activities that would nevertheless be very embarrassing to have publicly revealed.
I feel that people who justify levels of surveillance that may be excessive by saying you have nothing to worry about if you are not breaking any laws are failing to take into account possibilities such as these. Anyone with things in their life that are not illegal but which they wish to keep private may have legitimate concerns about this.