This time the mistake was made not by politicians but by the Australian Federal Police commissioner Andrew Colvin. Asked whether data retention could be used to police copyright infringement, Colvin responded: Absolutely, I mean any interface, any connection somebody has over the internet, we need to be able to identify the parties to that connection ... So illegal downloads, piracy ... cyber-crimes, cyber-security, all these matters and our ability to investigate them is absolutely pinned to our ability to retrieve and use metadata. Over the next few days George Brandis, Malcolm Turnbull and Colvin tried to roll this back. Copyright is a civil wrong, not a criminal one, they said. Copyright holders are responsible for bringing legal action against pirates. The AFP isnt interested in civil cases. (This is only partly true. Commercial scale copyright infringement is a criminal offence.) But heres why Colvins misstep matters. Mandatory data retention would create massive new databases of internet users activity in every internet service provider across the country. A lot of opponents of data retention have pointed out that this creates a very real risk of unauthorised access. Its hard to keep data secure. Yet just as concerning is authorised access. Once these databases have been created they will be one subpoena away from access in any and every private lawsuit. Many people have some residual faith that police and security services are benevolent. After all, their mission is absolutely essential - to protect us. But do Australians have the same faith in movie studios? Their neighbours? Their employers? Read more: abc.net.au/news/2014-11-04/berg-the-jig-is-up-on-data-retention-plans/5864432
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:18:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015