Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history

[SGB]

http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm

Words fail me at how angry I am with what the Govt wants to do. They deserve to lose the election just for even considering this.

[G1Optimal]

Rollseyes..

Here we go :mad:

[5FDP]

I could save them the trouble right now by telling them that 99.9% of all internet traffic is for porn :D

[Hursticon]

Um, invasion of privacy much?

I'm pretty sure that the law states that police or whoever have to have "reason of suspicion" in order to even ask to look at that sort of thing.

It'd be interesting to see which ISPs are willing to adopt this practice?, considering the storage requirement that'll be needed for the sheer number of private users, business users, schools etc. that will be generating ridiculous amounts of browsing history.

[SGB]

iiNet knew about retention proposal in 2009 (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/11/iinet-knew-about-retention-policy-in-2009/)

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Oh good, now the filter can make the 'net go slower and the mandatory browser history recorder can make it more expensive!:rolleyes: :mad:

Seriously, who does the government have advising them on this stuff? Monkeys? Sarah Palin?
Are the nutjob far-right 'family values' groups lobbying for this kind of crap really so powerful as to get this kind of crap pushed through even though any first-year IT or Communications student can tell you how and why it won't work?
More to the point, why don't Conroy and co put the funds into providing community education classes on safe, responsible, and effective internet use, so we cut down on child predators AND stuff like online identity fraud?
Yeesh...:(

[MV75]

So they can target ads at us. Earning money is the only reason to keep that sort of data.

[SGB]

Data retention proposal “totally insane”, says Linton (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/11/data-retention-policy-totally-insane-says-linton/)

This is about the only thing Linton's said that I agree with.

[SGB]

Sky News (http://www.skynews.com.au/) is running a "Should ISPs be required by law to store users' web browsing history?" poll.

You know which option to vote for.

[Tabias Prime]

would this not be in direct violation of the governments own communication laws....

[bruticus]

wtf? :mad:
thats like giving the authority to conduct a phone tap and a computer tap on everbody!!!
combine that with a filtering software and bam!!! they can do some pretty nasty stuff with all that information!!!

when and where do we protest??

[SGB]

would this not be in direct violation of the governments own communication laws....
The Govt would simply try to amend the law to remove that violation.

[1AZRAEL1]

Man, this just keeps getting worse and worse. I don't want to start a political argument, but this government is full of morons.

You know, I was actually thinking of making an online petition to target this government, by stating we would not vote for them again if all this crap goes through. Worded better of course :p

Does anyone think that would work? I know quite a number of people would sign it.

[Eruntalon]

I agree that the decision to instigate data retention of this degree is the wrong thing to do.


Sky News (http://www.skynews.com.au/) is running a "Should ISPs be required by law to store users' web browsing history?" poll.

You know which option to vote for.

I can't seem to find the poll? I voted on the latest poll however: 'Should Labour dump Kevin Rudd as it's leader?'

Also, just as a side note, if you search for 'Should ISPs be required by law to store users' on google this thread is first on the list of results.

[SGB]

They've changed the poll.

[SMHFConvoy]

Man, this just keeps getting worse and worse. I don't want to start a political argument, but this government is full of morons.

You know, I was actually thinking of making an online petition to target this government, by stating we would not vote for them again if all this crap goes through. Worded better of course :p

Does anyone think that would work? I know quite a number of people would sign it.

I do agree with you but I wouldn't want a govt with Tony Abbot in charge.

[Hursticon]

I do agree with you but I wouldn't want a govt with Tony Abbot in charge.

Seconded

[fatbot]

I could save them the trouble right now by telling them that 99.9% of all internet traffic is for porn :D

Have you been spying on me again?

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I do agree with you but I wouldn't want a govt with Tony Abbot in charge.+2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sleGcwSo3kE). It's kinda sad when the best you can say for the nominal leader of the country is 'Well, he's not as bad as the other guy.', and even more sad that that's pretty much always the case.:(

Our best bet here is to get the Greens the balance of power in the Senate, since both of the major 2 & 1/2 parties (Labor and Lib/Nat) are all too happy to trade civil liberties and due process for the illusion of safety.

[Golden Phoenix]

I do agree with you but I wouldn't want a govt with Tony Abbot in charge.

Greens it is!

[SGB]

Our best bet here is to get the Greens the balance of power in the Senate
That's actually looking very likely.

[1orion2many]

:)I always vote for the Greenies, Labour lost my vote over 20 years ago:o

[Lord_Zed]

I do agree with you but I wouldn't want a govt with Tony Abbot in charge.

Yeah, specially since he isn't opposed to these internet changes and would be willing to take them even further.

Ughhh! The political environment seems hopeless.

[1AZRAEL1]

True, I wouldn't vote for Abbot either. It's looking likely that I would vote for any other party. I would vote for any party that opposes the filter. That is the only thing that will swing my vote.

[fatbot]

:)I always vote for the Greenies, Labour lost my vote over 20 years ago:o


Which, due to preferences, the vote you cast goes to labour.

[5FDP]

Have you been spying on me again?

Yeah dude... I work for the government ;) :p

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Which, due to preferences, the vote you cast goes to labour.You can - and IMO should -number your own preferences you know, I always do - IIRC this time around the Greens have an official line of voters should DIY.:) Also, the way they negotiate preferences is by trying for Senate seats, so in this case it's the same difference as far as veto power in the Senate goes.

Doing some quick research I dug up the Greens policy pages on Science and Technology (http://greens.org.au/policies/media-arts-science/science-and-technology)and Media and Communications (http://greens.org.au/policies/media-arts-science/media-and-communications) - while they have an emphasis on 'net neutrality there's nothing specific about interent privacy unless it's in their full policy document, which I can't really be bothered reading through. I'd say it's still a pretty safe bet they'd be opposed to the filter and mandatory data retention given their broader stance, but it is probably worth emailing them (greens@greens.org.au) with your concerns about the filter/data retention and asking them what their official position on them is.
I have a friend in the party and will send him a message checking into this - if I can get an official stance I'll post it here.

[SGB]

Which, due to preferences, the vote you cast goes to labour.
Not if you vote below the line.



I'd say it's still a pretty safe bet they'd be opposed to the filter and mandatory data retention given their broader stance, but it is probably worth emailing them (greens@greens.org.au) with your concerns about the filter/data retention and asking them what their official position on them is.
The Greens are opposed to the filter and have said they will not vote for it.

As for the data retention issue, I suspect they're likely to oppose that as well. Scott Ludlam has said he'll be discussing this issue with the party.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

The Greens are opposed to the filter and have said they will not vote for it.

As for the data retention issue, I suspect they're likely to oppose that as well. Scott Ludlam has said he'll be discussing this issue with the party.You beat me to it - here's the transcript of Ludlum's speech. (http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/internet-filtering)

I have also held back from declaring the Greens' voting intentions on this issue in the faint hope that by the time we saw legislation the minister might have accommodated at least some of the concerns that have been put to him by a huge range of stakeholders. But, on the back of the Four Corners piece the other night, it is pretty obvious that this is a false hope. So let me remove that ambiguity once and for all. If the government presents its mandatory internet censorship scheme to the parliament in the form that the minister has been describing to us, the Australian Greens will vote against it.

In closing, in the brief time remaining to me, I just want to give you an example of the kind of opposition that the minister has drawn, and one of the reasons why this proposal has drawn such far-reaching criticism. Suzanne Dvorak from Save the Children Australia has said:

The lack of evidence to support the efficacy of the Government's planned internet filter suggests that the money could be better spent on internet safety education for children and parents, an investment that will offer children greater protection online and offline.

I would like to heartily endorse those comments. It is not good enough for the government to simply get this issue out of the way during the election campaign and then bring it back straight afterwards. That is an act of calculated cowardice. I think it is very important for the government to drop the mandatory filter; to do it now, before the election; and to work with the Greens, the opposition and, most importantly, with the broader community, to provide a safe online environment for Australian children.

[SGB]

OzLog won’t include web history: AG (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/14/ozlog-wont-include-web-history-ag/)

Still wary, though. Especially as the AG has not denied emails would not be recorded.

[SGB]

Taking liberties (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2927284.htm)

US: Concerns over Internet Censorship "central to our foreign policy" (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/14/us-concerns-over-int.html)

Privacy Commissioner sits on OzLog fence (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/15/privacy-commissioner-sits-on-ozlog-fence/)

[SGB]

Lessons learned from Europe's data retention laws (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/215135,lessons-learned-from-europes-data-retention-laws.aspx)

ISP snooping law would make piracy lawsuits AFACT of life (http://apcmag.com/opinion-snooping-law-would-make-copyright-suits-afact-of-life.htm)

Privacy betrayal has blown Labor's chances (http://www.zdnet.com.au/privacy-betrayal-has-blown-labor-s-chances-339303844.htm)

[SGB]

Inside Australia's data retention proposal (http://www.zdnet.com.au/inside-australia-s-data-retention-proposal-339303862.htm)

[1orion2many]

Which, due to preferences, the vote you cast goes to labour.

Only if your to lazy to number all the boxes I thought:confused:

[SGB]

IIA statement on Data Retention (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php/component/content/article/80/842-iia-statement-on-data-retention.html)

[Hursticon]

I like how the Attorney-General's Department expect the Industry to foot the bill for the retention of data and the process required in order to do so as well as the storage required :confused:.

The whole "We want to make Internet use in Australia more secure, but... We want you to retain private information, pay for it, store it and manage it" statement is so rude and a joke!. :mad:

I like how they don't want to spend any money on storing the retained data in a Government controlled central location, I agree in not keeping one's eggs in a single basket but I think they should at least play some sort of role seeming as it is their legislation that they want to introduce.

[SGB]

I like how the Attorney-General's Department expect the Industry to foot the bill for the retention of data and the process required in order to do so as well as the storage required :confused:.
Realistically, the industry wouldn't foot the bill, it'd be the consumers footing the bill through increased Internet access fees.

[Hursticon]

Realistically, the industry wouldn't foot the bill, it'd be the consumers footing the bill through increased Internet access fees.

Agreed, but you know what I mean, it's like saying:
"I wanna keep this MISB Fortress Maximus inside this perspex case but I want the members of OTCA to purchase the figure, the case and foot the bill for postage in order to keep the figure safe for the community".
Why would anyone do either?, where's the incentive?. :p

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I think the trick is to make it illegal for the rest of OTCA not to foot the bill...

[Hursticon]

I think the trick is to make it illegal for the rest of OTCA not to foot the bill...

:p

[SGB]

Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)

[1AZRAEL1]

I am very worried about what this government is doing, I truly am.

To me it seems that the government wants to know exactly what people are doing every nminute of the day. Net filter, customs declaration for porn, web snooping, all seem to be leading away from privacy of anyone. Yet they attack Google and Facebook for their privacy breaches. This government is a shambles, and makes this country look bad.

[SGB]

Senator Wong: “Government keen to make sure data is retained” (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/350608/senator_wong_government_keen_make_sure_data_retain ed_/)

Ludlam raises OzLog issue in Senate (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/21/ludlam-raises-ozlog-issue-in-senate/)

[SGB]

Labor elusive on web history collection (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/labor-elusive-on-web-history-collection/story-e6frgakx-1225882673730)

[1AZRAEL1]

Suprise suprise, they will dance around the issue because they know how much the public will look down upon it. Incompetent morons, Conroy and Wong.

[SGB]

ISPs could pay millions to store web data (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/350751/isps_could_pay_millions_store_web_data/)

[1AZRAEL1]

And the government expects that the ISP will fork out the money for it? Yea right. And even if the government decides to foot the bill, or partial, it will give us an even bigger deficit. I think most, if not all, ISP's will oppose this idea because it will eat into their profits if it could end up in the millions.

[SGB]

I think most, if not all, ISP's will oppose this idea because it will eat into their profits if it could end up in the millions.
They've been against this sort of thing for many years.

Some smaller ISPs might have to close doors if this (and the damn filter) happens because of costs, but bigger ones will simply pass on the costs to the consumers.


Industry warns against rushing cybersecurity laws (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2934059.htm)

[SGB]

No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html)

[SGB]

Government stifles debate on web browser history retention (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/354283/government_stifles_debate_web_browser_history_rete ntion/)

Feds censor ISP data retention documents (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/220789,feds-censor-isp-data-retention-documents.aspx)

[SGB]

Election 2010: Call for debate on Spooks' data plan (http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/40728-election-2010-call-for-debate-on-spooks-data-plan)

[SGB]

Greens seek to expose data retention docs (http://www.zdnet.com.au/greens-seek-to-expose-data-retention-docs-339304842.htm)

[Autocon]

can someone explian this in lamest terms pls:o teltra inlcuded i suppose:mad:

[SGB]

Attorney-General: I’m not to blame for censoring Web monitoring documents (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/355623/attorney-general_m_blame_censoring_web_monitoring_documents/)

[SGB]

Government backs away from web snooping plans (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-backs-away-from-web-snooping-plans-20100803-115c1.html)

[SGB]

Ombudsman has an eye on data retention (http://www.zdnet.com.au/ombudsman-has-an-eye-on-data-retention-339305386.htm)

[SGB]

Porn jokes are great, data retention is not (http://www.zdnet.com.au/porn-jokes-are-great-data-retention-is-not-339305786.htm)

[SGB]

AFP pressuring govt on data retention (http://www.zdnet.com.au/afp-pressuring-govt-on-data-retention-339305836.htm)

Data retention fine as it is: AFP (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/359713/data_retention_fine_it_afp/)

[SGB]

AFP pushing for invasive data retention (http://www.efa.org.au/2010/09/07/afp-pushing-for-invasive-data-retention/)

[Lint]

^
From the above article:

Indeed, today's article describes the policy as a balancing act between "what the private sector would like based on cost, and what we would like to do based on history and law enforcement capabilities". It's clear that the police want as much data as they can possibly get. If cost to ISPs is the only consideration, who is standing up for the rights of innocent users?

And the answer is...

[1AZRAEL1]

^^^ Nobody?

Another stupid policy that I will dread to see come into effect.

[SGB]

Senate data retention inquiry to be delayed (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/360072/senate_data_retention_inquiry_delayed/)

[SGB]

Privacy Commissioner still won’t talk OzLog (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/10/29/privacy-commissioner-still-wont-talk-ozlog/)

Privacy Commissioner slams data retention (http://www.zdnet.com.au/privacy-commissioner-slams-data-retention-339306931.htm)

[SGB]

Privacy commissioner calls for impact analysis on data retention plan (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/366202/privacy_commissioner_calls_impact_analysis_data_re tention_plan/)

[SGB]

OzLog unveiled: Senate lays data retention bare (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/10/29/ozlog-unveiled-senate-lays-data-retention-bare/)

[SGB]

Neuromancing the stone: Ludlam’s OzLog war (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/10/29/neuromancing-the-stone-ludlams-ozlog-war/)

[SGB]

Data retention policy treats all Australians as potential criminals (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/366219/data_retention_policy_treats_all_australians_poten tial_criminals/)

[SGB]

Data retention proposal pinned on VoIP (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/236982,data-retention-proposal-pinned-on-voip.aspx)

Fight for VoIP data at centre of data retention (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/366351/fight_voip_data_centre_data_retention/)

[SGB]

Data retention goes beyond 'status quo' (http://www.zdnet.com.au/data-retention-goes-beyond-status-quo-339307116.htm)

[SGB]

ISPs to retain data for three months if Australia joins European Cybercrime Convention (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/377247/isps_retain_data_three_months_australia_joins_euro pean_cybercrime_convention/)

Data retention should last one year: AG (http://www.zdnet.com.au/data-retention-should-last-one-year-ag-339309726.htm)

Police empowered to raid net for crime (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/police-empowered-to-raid-net-for-crime/story-e6frgakx-1226008211518)