A
reminder from history
"First
they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because
I was not a Socialist.
"Then
they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because
I was not a Trade Unionist.
"Then
they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not
a Jew.
"Then
they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me".
This is the thin edge of the wedge in Australia and may well go down in history as the day liberty died in Australia (like it did in the US when they passed the Patriot Act)
No doubt when this comes to New Zealand in the near future, courtesy of John Key, the majority of the population will welcome the loss of freedom.
It has been like that in history - and will be like that in future.
Australia:
Terror laws clear Senate, enabling entire Australian web to be
monitored and whistleblowers to be jailed
Australian
spies will soon have the power to monitor the entire Australian
internet with just one warrant, and journalists and whistleblowers
will face up to 10 years' jail for disclosing classified information.
26
September, 2014
The
government's first tranche of tougher anti-terrorism bills, which
will beef up the powers of the domestic spy agency ASIO, passed the
Senate by 44 votes to 12 on Thursday night with bipartisan support
from Labor.
Attorney-General
George Brandis praised the laws being passed.
Photo: Andrew Meares
Anyone
- including journalists, whistleblowers and bloggers - who
"recklessly" discloses "information ... [that] relates
to a special intelligence operation" faces
up to 10 years' jail.
Any
operation can be declared "special" by an authorised ASIO
officer
The
senate votes on the bill on Thursday night.
This
also gives ASIO immunity for criminal and civil liability in certain
circumstances.
Many,
including lawyers and academics, have said they fear the agency will
abuse this power.
Those
who identify ASIO agents could also face a decade in prison under the
new bill, a tenfold increase on the existing maximum penalty.
They
said this would effectively allow the entire internet to be
monitored, as it is a "network of networks" and the bill
does not specifically define what a computer network is.
ASIO
will also be able to copy, delete, or modify the data held on any of
the computers it has a warrant to monitor.
The
bill also allows ASIO to disrupt target computers, and use innocent
third-party computers not targeted in order to access a target
computer.
Professor
George Williams of the University of NSW has warned previously the
bill was too broad.
And,
unlike the government's controversial plans to get internet providers
to store metadata for up to two years, the bill passed on Thursday
allows for the content of communications to be stored.
Most
groups that had complained about the new bill also said they feared
its disclosure offences went too far, with the Australian Lawyers
Alliance saying they would have "not just a chilling effect
but a freezing effect" on national security reporting.
Attorney-General
George Brandis did not seek to allay their concerns on Thursday but
said that, in a "newly dangerous age", it was vital that
those protecting Australia were equipped with the powers and
capabilities they needed.
When
the bill passed on Thursday night, he said it was the most important
reform for Australia's intelligence agencies since the late 1970s.
On
Wednesday afternoon, Senator Brandis confirmed that, under the
legislation, ASIO would be able to use just one warrant to access
numerous devices on a network.
The
warrant would be issued by the director-general of ASIO or his
deputy.
"There
is no arbitrary or artificial limit on the number of devices,"
Senator Brandis told the Senate.
However,
Senator Brandis did say on Thursday that the new bills did not target
journalists specifically, despite concerns from media organisations
that they would be targets.
The
new legislation instead targeted those who leaked
classified information, such as the former US National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden, Senator Brandis said.
"These
provisions have nothing to do with the press."
The
Australian Greens, through Senator Scott Ludlam, put forward an
amendment that would limit the number of computers ASIO could access
with one warrant to 20 but it failed to gain support from Labor or
the government.
Speaking
after the bill passed, Senator Ludlam told Fairfax Media he
was disappointed.
"What
we've seen [tonight] is, I think, a scary, disproportionate and
unnecessary expansion of coercive surveillance powers that will not
make anybody any safer but that affect freedoms that have been quite
hard fought for and hard won over a period of decades," Senator
Ludlam said.
"I
have very grave concerns about the direction that the Australian
government seems to be suddenly taking the country."
Independent
Senator Nick Xenophon and Liberal Democratic Senator David Leyonhjelm
also put forward amendments that would protect whistleblowers but
these did not gain enough support either.
The
legislation, which also covers a number of other issues, addresses
many of the recommendations of a joint parliamentary inquiry into
Australia's national security laws.
After
concerns were raised by Labor and Senator Leyonhjelm, the government
agreed to amend the legislation to specifically rule out ASIO using
torture.
"ASIO
cannot, does not and has never engaged in torture," Senator
Brandis said.
The
Palmer United Party was also successful in amending the law so anyone
who exposes an undercover ASIO operative could face up to 10 years
behind bars instead of one.
"The
internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence,"
Palmer United Party Senator Glen Lazarus said, speaking out against
Senator Ludlam's amendment.
The
Australian Greens voted against the bill, slamming the new measures
as extreme and a "relentless expansion of powers" of the
surveillance state.
Senator
Leyonhjelm and Senator Xenophon also opposed the legislation, as
did independent Senator John Madigan.
One
of the amendments put forward by Senator Xenophon would have
required ASIO's watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence
and Security, to report publicly each year on how many devices ASIO
accessed.
But
Labor and the government voted against it, with Senator Brandis
saying it "would not be appropriate" to report figures as
it would reveal information about ASIO's capabilities.
The
legal changes come amid growing concern over Islamic State extremists
in the Middle East and terrorism threats at home.
Islamic
State (also known as ISIL) has ordered followers to target civilian
Australians.
In
less than a week, police in two states launched the biggest
counter-terrorism raids in Australia's history, and shot dead a known
terrorist suspect after he stabbed two officers in Melbourne.
These
changes have opposition support and would make it a criminal office
to travel to a terrorist hot-spot without a reasonable excuse.
-
with AAP
Eight
ways Tony Abbott is trying to trade freedom for security
A
series of law enforcement and intelligence gathering bills to be
considered by parliament will affect the rights of all Australians
24
September, 2014
The
Australian prime
minister, Tony Abbott, has argued
that some freedoms may need to be sacrificed in order to protect
Australians. Citizens are now being asked to support a shift in “the
delicate balance between freedom and security”.
But
what is that shift and how far should it go? The federal government
is embarking on a series of major changes to our law enforcement and
intelligence gathering power. Many of these changes are confusing,
highly technical, and are being brought forward in a series of
different bills that are at very different stages.
What
they will all affect are the rights and freedoms of Australians. The
debate that occurs over the coming months in federal parliament and
in the public domain will shape how digital rights, personal
liberties and freedoms are protected in years to come.
Here
are eight of the key changes being proposed across three separate
bills and how they could affect your rights and freedoms.
National
security reform bill one
This
bill was introduced
into the Senate in July by the attorney general. It was then sent to
the joint committee on intelligence and security, which proposed some
small changes to the legislation. It is now being debated in the
Senate. The three points below are found in this bill.
1)
Journalists and whistleblowers face jail for intelligence reporting
Australian
journalists could face prosecution and jail for reporting
about certain spy operations, even if there is a public interest in
the release of the information. This bill creates a new offence
punishable by five years in jail for “any person” who discloses
information relating to “special intelligence operations” and
raises serious concerns about press freedom in Australia. While
Brandis has said that the new offence is not aimed at journalists,
the joint committee review did
not recommend changes to the law
– meaning journalists could still face penalties down the line if
they knowingly report on these types of operations.
Separate
offences have also been created that only apply to current and former
intelligence operatives and contractors in a move which appeared to
directly address the risk of documentary disclosures being made
following revelations by the US
National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden
– who Brandis has previously labelled a “traitor”.
2)
Computer hacking powers for intelligence agencies
New
powers could allow Asio to obtain massive warrants for effectively
the whole of the internet as part of changes to computer access laws.
Under these changes, Asio will be given new powers to obtains
warrants to disrupt and target “third party computers”. But as
constitutional law expert and University of New South Wales professor
George Williams told Fairfax
Media,
the new laws could effectively allow agencies to gain access to one
“network” that effectively covered all of Australia. Depending on
the scope of these warrants and how they are interpreted, this could
involve quite serious invasions of privacy.
3)
Immunity from prosecution for uses of force by Asio officers involved
in “special intelligence operations”
One
of the most controversial aspects of this legislation allows Asio
officers to use force during certain types of operations.
Traditionally, the intelligence agency was about just that –
intelligence gathering. But changes in this bill seem to indicate a
shift permitting them to engage in a much broader range of activities
that were traditionally left to other law enforcement agencies.
They
won’t be able to kill or seriously injure or commit a sexual
assault – but the fact remains that this does permit a level of
force to be used by Asio officers in these types of special
intelligence operations. An amendment to the bill was subsequently
moved by the government to
helpfully clarify that it does not permit torture.
National
security reform bill two
This
bill was introduced
into the Senate on 24 September. It has not yet been debated, and
will likely go to the joint committee for intelligence and security
for their consideration first. If that is the case it will not be
debated in the Senate for at least another month. The four points
below are found in this bill.
4)
Expanding detention without charge powers
Preventative
detention orders allow a person to be detained without charge for up
to 14 days and their use is shrouded in secrecy. They were set to
expire last year, but the case is now being made for their renewal
for another 10 years.
The
new act also seeks to lower the threshold for when police officers
can apply for these orders from having a “belief” to a
“suspicion” While it may seem semantic this is an important
distinction that lowers the bar for applying to a court for the
orders.
Legal
experts have questioned the need for this entire regime to exist –
given there are already substantial powers to hold and detain people
under the existing criminal code, and particularly seeing as there
doesn’t seem to have been much use for these laws over the past
decade.
5)
Restricting freedom of movement and association with control orders
and prohibited contact orders
Control
orders and prohibited contact orders will similarly be retained under
the new bill if it succeeds in passing. Control orders allow a judge
to impose restrictions on the movement of a person without finding
them guilty of an offence, while prohibited contact orders limit
their associations.
Both
of these orders will be expanded to increase the range of reasons
they can be sought, including restricting the movement or
associations people who have been involved in foreign incursions and
return to Australia.
6)
Life imprisonment for people who fight, or even prepare to fight,
overseas in a foreign country
An
aggressive deterrent is being put forward
where people who fight or intend to fight in a foreign country could
face life imprisonment. The government is radically reshaping the
foreign incursion laws to create life sentences for people who engage
in foreign incursions, prepare for foreign incursions, give or
receive goods or allow the use of buildings or vessels for foreign
incursions.
7)
Prohibiting travel to a region, or even an entire country, unless a
person can demonstrate a legitimate reason for being there
The
new offence would criminalise a person entering or remaining in a
“declared area” by the foreign affairs minister if they enter or
remain in an area that has been proscribed.
The
defendant would need to demonstrate they had a legitimate reason for
being there – which could include journalism, aid work or
government duties – to avoid being subject to the offence.
Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg
Barns has raised serious concerns
about whether this law is necessary or proportionate – and what
value it would serve given the existing laws surrounding incursions.
National
security reform bill three
This
is the last package of national security legislation and is likely to
be mainly about electronic surveillance. It is much more difficult to
consider what impact it will have, as the government still appears to
be considering what changes they will make. But they have given some
indications of what they would like to see, and the one point below
outlines this. The attorney general has flagged the bill for
introduction later this year.
8)
Mandatory data retention of Australians web and mobile data for two
years
Mandatory
data retention would largely be
for the purposes of allowing web and mobile data to be seized by law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. This sort of retention
potentially exposes Australians to significant intrusions into their
private lives, allowing broad access to who, when and where a person
emailed or call somebody.
The
proposal has created additional concerns because of the weak
safeguards around access to this sort of personal information already
in place. Under
the current laws,
thousands of local, state and federal agencies can request access to
Australians’ personal data – or metadata – without a warrant.
Access to this data is so easy
there were over 300,000 requests
for Australians’ personal data in 2013. It raises serious concerns
for all citizens, but also poses major difficulties for
journalists and their sources,
who can easily be exposed through these laws
Not everyone has gone alone with this
Posts
