Oz Gov redacts 90% of websnoop policy plans

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
> Date: July 23, 2010 8:04:27 AM EDT
> To: List Infowarrior <infowarrior () attrition org>
> Cc: Farber Dave <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Oz Gov redacts 90% of websnoop policy plans

> No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html
>
> The federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans 
> to snoop on Australians' web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document 
> could cause "premature unnecessary debate".
>
> The government has been consulting with the internet industry over the proposal, which would require ISPs to store 
> certain internet activities of all Australians - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for 
> law-enforcement agencies to access.
>
> All parties to the consultations have been sworn to secrecy.
>
> Industry sources have claimed that the controversial regime could go as far as collecting the individual web browsing 
> history of every Australian internet user, a claim denied by the spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland.
>
> The exact details of the web browsing data the government wants ISPs to collect are contained in the document 
> released to this website under FoI.
>
> The document was handed out to the industry during a secret briefing it held with ISPs in March.
>
> But from the censored document released, it is impossible to know how far the government is planning to take the 
> policy.
>
> The government is hiding the plans from the public and it appears to want to move quickly on industry consultation, 
> asking for participants to respond within only one month after it had held the briefings.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> See the highly-censored document (PDF, 3.60MB)
> See government reasons for censoring it (PDF, 3.23MB)
> ------------------------------------------
>
> The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in 
> releasing the highly censored document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary 
> debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".
>
> Hernandez said that the material in question related to information the department was "currently weighing up and 
> evaluating in relation to competing considerations that may have a bearing on a particular course of action or 
> decision".
>
> "More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, 
> and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," she wrote.
>
> Further, she said that although she had acknowledged the public's right to "participate in and influence the 
> processes of government decision making and policy formulation ... the premature release of the proposal could, more 
> than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression".
>
> "In addition, as the matters are not settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of 
> such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate."
>
> Hernandez went further to say that she considered disclosure of the document uncensored "could be misleading to the 
> public and cause confusion and premature and unnecessary debate".
>
> "In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against," Hernandez said.
>
> The "data retention regime" the government is proposing to implement is similar to that adopted by the European Union 
> after terrorist attacks several years ago.
>
> Greens Communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said the excuse not to release the proposal in full was "extraordinary". 
> Since finding out about the scheme, he has launched a Senate inquiry into it and other issues.
>
> "The idea that its release could cause 'premature' or 'unnecessary' debate is not going to go down well with the 
> thousands of people who have been alarmed by the direction that government is taking," he said in a telephone 
> interview.
>
> "I would really like to know what the government is hiding in this proposal," he said, adding that he hoped that the 
> Attorney-General's Department would be "more forthcoming" about the proposal in the senate inquiry into privacy he 
> pushed for in June.
>
> Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, George Brandis, said the government’s decision to censor the documents 
> showed ‘‘how truly Orwellian this government has become".
>
> "To refuse disclosure of material that had already been circulated among stakeholders, on an issue of intense current 
> political debate on the ground that it might provide unnecessary discussion, shows that the Gillard government has 
> become beyond satire," Brandis said.
>
> Online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs said what was released was "a joke".
>
> "We have to assume the worse," he said. "And that is that the government has been badgering the telcos with very 
> aggressive demands that should worry everybody."
>
> Jacobs said that the onus was now on government to "explain what data they need, what problem it solves and, just as 
> importantly, why it can't be done in an open process".
>
> "The more sensitive the process and the data they want, the more transparent the government needs to be about why it 
> wants that data," he said. "Nobody could argue that public consultation ... would somehow help criminals," he added.
>
> "We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn't 
> be worried about people having insight into the consultation.
>
> "This is a very sensitive and important issue. It raises huge questions about privacy, data security and the burden 
> of increased costs to smaller internet service providers. What really needs to be debated is what particular 
> information they want, because that's where the privacy issue rears its ugly head," he said.
>
> According to one internet industry source, the release of the highly censored document was "illustrative of 
> government's approach to things where they don't want people to know what they're thinking in advance of them getting 
> it ready to package for public consumption".
>
> "And that’s worrying."
>
> The Attorney-General's spokesman declined to comment, referring comment to the department. The department said it had 
> "nothing to add" to the FOI letter it provided.
>
> You can follow the author on Twitter @bengrubb or email bgrubb () smh com au.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com