Australian data retention debate heats up

Privacy & Security Posted on October 5, 2012

Australian data retention debate heats up

Australia’s National Security Proposals, which threaten to curtail the online freedoms of Aussie citizens, are currently being thrashed out in a series of joint parliamentary committees. The latest hearing, which took place last week, saw police officials call for new data retention laws and increased power to access Australian citizens' online personal data. However, ISPs and storage experts have said the proposed plans would be hugely costly and complicated to implement.

Two years not enough

When discussing how long ISPs should hold onto customer data, Australia’s Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus told the inquiry in Sydney he wants records of every website and email sent held indefinitely, so it could be accessed by police at any time. However, given the extremity of this request (not even China has implemented indefinite data retention policies), Mr Negus said that a two year data retention policy would be acceptable.

“The two-year proposal … we could live with,” he said. “It certainly wouldn’t be ideal, but we could live with [it].”

Growing pressure to change laws

Unlike in Europe, currently Australian ISPs are under no obligation to retain the personal data of citizens for any length of time. But they are obliged to give “necessary assistance” to any law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth States and Territories.

However, since July attorney-general Nicola Roxon has been steadily beating the drum for a crackdown on online privacy in the name of law enforcement and her proposals have been controversial to say the least. Roxon is not entirely clear what constitutes personal data, but she insists that the contents of emails will not be accessible. As with the EU’s Data Retention Directive, the data would likely consist of logs concerning who you’ve emailed, and when, as well as what websites you’ve visited and when you visited them. Roxon insists they are necessary for 21st century law enforcement ands points to the EU’s laws as further justification.

Costly and ineffective

But ISPs say the plans would be highly expensive to implement and would not even give law enforcement the information they are seeking. Australian ISP iiNet told the committee that the costs of setting up data capture points would reach around $60 and would ultimately be passed down to consumers, with a rise of $5 per connection. Rival ISP Telstra said a great deal of the data sought by the police would be held by “over the top” services such as Skype and Gmail, not ISPs.

“The other part that gets a little bit lost in all this is that some of the information that carriers may want is not something that carriers themselves can provide because it’s information that’s contained in applications that are used by over-the-top players,” said Telstra’s security spokesman Darren Kane.

Meanwhile, Hitachi Data Systems told that the iiNet’s assessment is a “conservative estimate” of the costs involved in capturing such massive amounts of data. “There’s no doubt that there is going to be huge logs that need to be maintained,” said Hitachi’s Australian CTO. “The ability to find an email that was around two years ago from, potentially, a customer that no longer is with them, how do you go and do that easily? High levels of automation and understanding the context of information is going to be critical.”

Falling in line

It’s clear that governments around the world are trying to turn ISP data retention into an accepted standard policy, despite the protests of both ISPs, the wider online industry and of course regular online citizens. What’s worrying is that there’s an obvious snowball effect taking place, whereby governments justify such anti-online privacy laws pointing to their implementation in other countries. These justifications are powered by the insistence of law enforcement agencies that such laws are necessary to protect society. But, as with any organisation, the police will always want to increase their powers, as is illustrated by Police Commissioner Tony Negus' comments that he wants “indefinite” data retention. They do not care about the privacy risks – it’s not their problem. Australia is lucky that it currently remains free of data retention laws; for its sake – and for the sake of other western democracies – it needs to resist Roxon’s proposed laws.

We invite you to discuss this post in our Reddit community or on Twitter. You can also send your feedback to





Your article “the 5 greatest threats to online privacy ' was very interesting.

But as an Australian on this day Sunday 17 March,2013 the current socialist government, the Australian Labor Party, r about to by censorship and for control of the media for starters take the step taken by the likes of Hitler & Stalin etc by legislating against an journalists writing ANY columns that are critical of the government. They are dependant on 3 independents (as Labor is a minority government) voting with them to slam this bill through before Tuesday the 19th March,2013 which I believe is the latest date they r legally permitted to do so as their leader (former allied with the communist party & has never worked outside the union movement except a brief stint with a socialist Melbourne law firm, Slater & Gordon.Her departure from there is clouded in mystery as whilst she was employed by S & G she defended, whilst embroiled in a long term affair, with a man who was on trial for embezzlement. A large sum of money which purchased (she denies) a house for HER in HER name. She was then in her mid thirties & claimed she was ‘conned’ by this man who ‘broke her heart’ and claimed she was TOO young & TOO NAIVE to understand what was taking place.

TOO young & naïve in ones MID thirties, a lawyer who had worked around, socialised with & represented some of the toughest union heavies in Australian at that time???? She is now in her early 50’s) & is one of the most cunning actress’s, liars,,diabolically fallacious politician in Australia’s history.

She has called an election for September this year, which according to various polls she cannot win.

If this once wonderful country of ours is to survive economically, incorruptibility and free, our people from the eventual Big Brother Marxist police-state we, the masses, MUST realise that Communism is NOT dead, it lives alive & well here in Australia under the guise of the Australian Labor Party !!!!



I do not believe that my contribution of a few minutes ago will be accepted for any type of publication because most print, electronic & all types of speaking one’s mind in the way I have has already been censored not just here but in other Westernised so called ‘fee’ countries. No editor or moderator will take a chance of having the wrath of these governments come down on them. None at all,, once intrepid,, dauntless editors, journalists & columnists have lost their guts, they have taken the spineless way out.

….shut up & keep your jobs!!!


Independent security audit concluded

By Nick Pestell


IVPN applications are now open source

By Viktor Vecsei


Beta IVPN Linux app released

By Viktor Vecsei

Most people don't need a commercial VPN to work from home securely Privacy & Security

Most people don't need a commercial VPN to work from home securely

Posted on April 7, 2020 by Nick Pestell

Many small businesses and their employees are concerned about the security of their data whilst working from home during the coronavirus pandemic. We see a lot of confusion surrounding this topic, even from fairly technical folk and there is unfortunately a lot of misinformation being spread by commercial VPN providers themselves.
You can't always get what you want: the eternal conflict between lawful access and privacy Privacy & Security

You can't always get what you want: the eternal conflict between lawful access and privacy

Posted on April 19, 2018 by mirimir

In late March, the US Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) took effect. And predictably, the US Supreme Court just dismissed United States v. Microsoft Corp. In that case, Microsoft was fighting a subpoena for data stored in an Irish data center.
Spotted a mistake or have an idea on how to improve this page?
Suggest an edit on GitHub.