Meta data and the effects of surveillance
Proposed mandatory data retention legislation might well see citizens regressing to cold war practices of leaving notes in hollowed-out trees and chalk marks on park benches, in an effort to escape the scrutiny of law enforcement agencies.
Labouring under the assumption that every citizen ought to be kept under surveillance, the Abbott Government wants to introduce legislation that will require Internet and phone providers to store meta data for up to two years for access by law enforcement agencies without a warrant.
Meta data is the footprint that reveals where you have been, but not the content of your visit. I understand it will remain necessary to obtain a warrant to access content. Until it doesn’t.
Aggravating the dodgy nature of this proposed escalation of State intrusion into our private lives is the lack of a legal definition of meta data in the proposed legislation. This sounds suspiciously like a deliberate omission that will permit a broad interpretation, according to what a law enforcement agency wants to obtain at any particular time.
Attorney-General George Brandis doesn’t know what meta data is, while Prime Minister Tony Abbott likens it to what’s on the front of an envelope, rather than the envelope’s contents. As the two prime movers of this legislation can’t coherently explain what it is actually about, they likely ought to proceed with caution.
Abbott has argued the necessity for the proposed legislation in order to prevent terrorism, crime and Internet paedophilia. Without mass surveillance there will be “an explosion in unsolved crime” he warned, and added that we all want to stop the horrible offence of child abuse, much of which occurs online.
In the absence of a war or a terrorist attack he can manipulate to get him out of the abyss of unpopularity into which he continues to plunge; national security, crime explosions and child abuse will have to do. Abbott is pressuring Labor to bring forward debate on the proposed meta data legislation, rather than take the time needed to properly examine the possible repercussions. These could be many, particularly for journalists, whistleblowers, and freedom of speech.
So what are the effects on individuals and societies of constant surveillance by the State?
As Michel Foucault puts it in “Discipline and Punish”:
He [sic] who is subjected to a field of visibility and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.
In other words, if you believe yourself to be constantly surveilled it hardly matters whether you are or not. Your behaviour will be controlled by that belief, and there will be little need for exterior monitoring. You are experiencing … the division of the subject into a judging authority and an accused individual. You will have adjusted your way of being in the world according to the belief that you are constantly visible, and so will regulate your own behaviour by becoming both the observer and the observed. Power over you will function automatically, and corrupt your sense of autonomy.
This dynamic operates whether the surveillance is within the family, or imposed by the State or religions. “God is watching you” has a determining effect on how someone behaves if they believe there is a god who wants to keep them under constant surveillance. In families where boundaries aren’t respected a child or partner can be subjected to surveillance that intrudes upon their sense of independence, and they often self-regulate to accommodate the demands of the more powerful parent or partner, and not according to their own wishes.
Of course, as Foucault also pointed out, where there is power there is also resistance, and humans tend to resist external control, but the point is, why should we have to when the will to control originates in the democratic State?
With the proposed new legislation, law enforcement agencies will access without a warrant information about where you have been on your phone and your Internet. They will know who you’ve emailed and when, but not the content of the email. They will know who you’ve sent texts to and when, but not the content of the text. If you get drunk and text your ex they will know where you were when you did it, and how many times. The government believes it is reasonable for it to gather such information about every single one of its citizens, because that is the way it will protect us from terrorism, crime, and paedophiles.
If the only way the State can combat terrorism, crime and paedophilia is to subject every one of its citizens to constant surveillance, then the State is incompetent. And it is reckless to trust any government to that extent.
The State is presuming all its citizens to be guilty until proven innocent, and demanding by law that we relinquish our individual privacy for the government’s perception of the common good. This trade-off between freedom and protection is a false dichotomy, and one that conceals the totalitarian impulses born of power exercised without due concern for citizens’ rights.
Not only will Abbott refuse people who might be a threat to Australia the “benefit of the doubt,” he’s denying every one of us the benefit of the doubt.
Actually, I have no idea what he means about denying potential security threats the benefit of the doubt, and I don’t think he has either.
You cannot argue that it is necessary to surveil everyone in order to ensure our safety, or to control everyone in order to control those who would do harm. That is a ludicrous position to take. So what does the government want with all this information on all of its citizens?
Surveillance is never neutral. It is never innocent. It presumes potential deviance, according to the watchers’ definitions of that term, and if it happens with our meta data, it will change the way we think about ourselves, and live our daily lives.
This article was first published on No Place For Sheep.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
19 comments
Login here Register here-
Kaye Lee -
unsimplelife -
ianmac -
eli nes -
Harquebus -
Matters Not -
Anon E Mouse -
mark delmege -
Jennifer Wilson -
paul walter -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Graham Houghton -
David -
Harquebus
-
Harquebus
-
mark delmege -
Harquebus -
-
Return to home pageWhat a difference a year or two makes…..this from October 2012
“Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has broken his silence regarding the Fedeal Government’s controversial data retention and surveillance package, declaring that he has “grave misgivings” about a project which he feels “seems to be heading in precisely the wrong direction”.
…some Liberal backbenchers are stridently opposed to the package, including Liberal MP Steve Ciobo, who has described as including tactics similar to those used by the Gestapo — the Nazi secret police. Yesterday, in a wide-ranging speech given as the annual Alfred Deakin lecture, Turnbull openly declared his concerns about the package.”
If you read the article you will see it contains all the misgivings being articulated now by Scott Ludlum.
It is all well and good to sight what is wrong with data retention, but i think the reality is that in one form or another it will be in place. Rather than sighting the blatantly obvious truth that it is a total erosion of our privacy rights, we all need to be looking at ways to protect ourselves as much as possible.
There are several online services/apps that are considered out of scope in the legislation. Ie- website based email, rather than is and/or Australian hosted mail. Free public wife, vpn etc.
There are plenty of ways to circumvent data retention as it is proposed right now, however by doing so you need to look at the bigger picture and start to consider just how wide the USAs surveillance net is cast. I think you will find the gaps in the Australian legislation almost directly coincide with what is already monitored on their end.
There are some gaps. I am doing the research and will share when I can.
Kaye Lee, as I would expect, is right on to to the doublespeak that we, daily, are force fed. $400million per annum is just the tip of the berg that the public face as the cost of the ‘Bott’s Paranoic Regime cripples Australia economically and socially.
The worldview of this country has been leveled to below that of someone once married to a collector of many many shoes…!
Kaye Lee, no wonder you are in pyjamas. This last week or so has been the most painfully excruciating slow schlock in the history of Australian politics. and that IS saying something !
did anyone hear abbutt head of aust say the young don’t use mobile phones they use skype????
Data->Process->Information.
Not only will the data collected be processed by the security apparatus to control an innocent population and stifle dissent but, also through blackmail, control and stifle politicians and journalists.
Our politicians are selling themselves out as well as us. They are completely stupid and shortsighted. When, late one night, a knock comes on their door, it will already be too late.
Michel Foucault? What next for the AIMN.
Just joking.
Great article Jennifer.
Perhaps it’s really about both the ‘effects’ and the ‘affects’?
What say you?
I wonder what Peter Greste and his colleagues think of this.
(forgive me if I have told this one before) An old mate of mine who taught me the computer and the use of the internet before it was the internet now sells meta data on four continents. Interestingly he told me that computer software has more security holes than you can ever possibly imagine. Now remember that next time you try to use Tor or encryption or you are voting on-line for candidates in your local government election, footballs club or Federally. And remind yourself who it is that is recommending that on-line polling is safe and that it should be used for this or that election/
Matters Not, you have it in a nutshell. It is entirely about the affects and the effects.
As for Foucault – he is everywhere. 🙂
Wow, that Foucault quote is both central and piquant and I think if people ever wanted an example of how the process is played they would need go no further than Abbott himself in the negative or simulacrum most obviously.
The cruel side of is of course, the extent that we must in our own ways, be not so much better than Abbott. The price for self reflexivity must be a little psychic work now and then.
I really enjoyed that article..as Neil Young says..more than meets the eye, in “My my, hey hey”.
Some would say too deterministic, but this is not the particular rabbit Foucault is after.. he never denies free will within the contexts that form it. But it doesnt mean that people just take things for granted in the surety of knowing they will fight back if pushed hard enough, its precisely the trap we have to avoid; presuming life just turns up to oblige good folk..
It is disturbing enough that surveillance and controllish behaviour have been able to sneak up on us to even the extent they have, but Life is what happens while we are planning other things: When others maybe resisiting us.
Ok, so the reactionary mentality didn’t die, it is about and thriving in its new medium. what happens nowis that people avoid presumingits inevitbility and start disrupting it before we become irretrievably Abbottish as the disease proliferates.
Mark Delmege unpacks a depressing, even crippling reality but from there we have the idea…having identified the problem we seek to subvert it because that’s the one joy left us…well, so be it.
Well written, Jennifer Wilson
We citizens should not be subject to widespread and unmitigated surveillance. Rabid’s feeble attempt at differentiating what’s on the envelope as opposed to what’s inside, is facile and misleading because it still tracks where or what we are doing.
If we tolerate this invasion of our privacy and the attack on the presumption that we are innocent before the suggestion of being found guilty, then we would be participating in what would only serves to confine us.
It takes two to tango, so we must be vigilant in maintaining our civil and human rights despite the current LNP Degenerate Government’s contempt for such reasonable, ethical values. If we fail to oppose these regressive measures, then our laziness will only bite us in the bums for allowing the undermining of our democratic freedoms of speech, movement and self-determination.
Speaking out on these forums (fora) is essential. Representations to noisy MP’s and Senators eg Lambie to voice our concerns is another way to act.
What puzzles me is why there hasn’t already been an ‘explosion of unsolved crime’ since Big Brother is not yet watching. And if you believe that last bit, you have a serious problem with reality. Criminals are usually well ahead of the game on this, so they’re already exploding (on the dark web, perhaps?), or they’re already using dead letter boxes and chalk marks all over the place, which includes metawebby thing.
Interesting informative article Jennifer. Seems to me if the snooping Govt know where we have been, it wont be rocket science to discover what is contained in the where.
Graeme Houghton hits the proverbial nail. The real crims, those who the disastrous excuse for an AG Brandis insists are the nasties the Govt are legislating for, have progressed technically as fast if not faster as our law makers/enforcers have.
Legislation is not required.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/16/hard-drive-spyware/
Russian researchers expose breakthrough U.S. spying program
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/16/us-usa-cyberspying-idUSKBN0LK1QV20150216
Your hard drives were RIDDLED with NSA SPYWARE for YEARS
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/kaspersky_labs_equation_group/
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2885069/theres-no-way-of-knowing-if-the-nsas-spyware-is-on-your-hard-drive.html
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/567733/android-malware-fakes-phone-shutdown-steal-data/
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/400712,lenovo-caught-pre-installing-adware-on-laptops.aspx
The US and UK national spy agencies stole encryption keys that protect mobile phone communications around the world to monitor global voice and data mobile communications without permission.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/400724,us-uk-spy-agencies-raid-gemalto-sim-encryption-keys.aspx
Want more? Google: firmware spyware
The U.S., Australia, Canada, UK and New Zealand share spy data.
Google: Five Eyes, PRISM, Echelon
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/july/1372600800/richard-cooke/how-nsa-surveillance-destroys-privacy-and-undermines-our-so
ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement (Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, and the United States, known as AUSCANNZUKUS or Five Eyes)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_echelon.htm
and then there was the Promis Software from years back…
Just came across this.
http://www.infowars.com/buyer-beware-talking-barbie-records-kids-conversations/
Pingback: THE INTERNET IS FREE, or is it? – elysium design utopia
Pingback: Surveillance for Cyberwar – elysium design utopia