A new bill that would force Australian telecom firms to store clients' personal data to help law enforcement agencies track down extremists conspiring to carry out acts of terrorism has attracted the scrutiny of analysts.
Committee chair, Liberal MP Dan Tehan, said the legislation
forwards 38 recommendations to enhance safeguards.
"These recommendations, which are all bipartisan, will ensure
that those mechanisms there operate efficiently and effectively
and the public can be confident the regime is being used
appropriately," he said, as quoted by Sky News.
The future success of turning the bill into law, however, largely
hinges on the question of metadata, and, more specifically, what
the definition of metadata is.
READ MORE: ‘Hopeless’: Angry Aussie activists slam PM Abbott with Obama-style poster
While experts fail to agree on a single definition, the
government wants the freedom to determine the definition of
metadata without consulting with MPs should the bill become law.
The government has previously explained metadata as the
information that is contained on an envelope, including the name
of the sender, the recipient and their relative addresses. The
contents of the letter inside of the envelope, however, would be
off limits for prying eyes.
The metadata with telephone calls is similar, with only the
numbers contacted, the duration, time and date of the call. The
contents of the conversation would not be recorded.
Providing a definition of internet metadata, however, poses an
altogether different problem, and one that the government
apparently does not wish to consider in a public and transparent
manner.
This presents a problem for security experts and privacy
advocates alike. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee
has called for the definition to be put down in the legislation
rather than decided later by government.
University of New South Wales Law Professor George Williams told
AP the recommendations addressed his two major issues with the
bill: that it does not define what metadata was, while not
disclosing who could access it.
Opposition has come from the Greens, with Senator Scott Ludlam
saying the proposed changes to the bill did not amount to much.
"We're really concerned that the Labor Party, instead of
treating this proposal with the skepticism that it deserves,
appears to have thrown Prime Minister Tony Abbott some kind of
mass surveillance lifeline," Ludlam said, as quoted by ABC
News of Australia.
Attorney-General George Brandis supported the legislation,
emphasizing the importance of storing metadata.
"Metadata is used in virtually all serious criminal
investigations, including murder, sexual assault, child
exploitation and kidnapping investigations,” he said.
Brandis appears to be better versed in metadata than he was last
August when, in an interview with Sky News Australia, he became
utterly lost on the issue.
Meanwhile, several Australian firms have expressed concern that
any new storage requirements for clients’ metadata would cost
millions of dollars.
At the same time, since Australians are notorious for being some
of the biggest offenders of illegally downloading movies and
video games, many fear that any future legal action on the part
of law enforcement will extend beyond the hunt for terrorists.