If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?
Will Rogers (Hollywood Cowboy and Humorist)
![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/8920335.jpg?342)
Dumb Dumb and Boof, fresh from their spectacular capitulation on Boof's signature policy (after first clearing their actions with Andrew Bolt) quickly announce their intentions to collect Metadata, not knowing how powerful it is or even what it is.
'Boof' Brandis, also clearly not a 'tech-head' fumbled his way through an interview which clearly showed he was advocating for something he didn't understand. The rate at which he was saying 'Umm' you could be excused for thinking that Boof was the ventriloquist's dummy and Tony Dumb Dumb was providing the words.
And despite not being able to articulate what Metadata is, or how much of it they want to keep, or what it will tell them, or how much it will invade the privacy of everyone, or assure us that it won't capture what websites have been visited.... Boof hasn't even decided how wide this data net will be cast and what activities will be included (such as Skype conversations).
A very interesting piece in The Guardian illustrates exactly how much metadata tells us, as well as the potential for it to be misinterpreted. The next Dr Haneef may well be arrested based on a metadata trail
This has obviously led to great concerns. They key question which does need a legal answer is: how information is accessed - what requires a warrant, and what doesn't. An excellent example of the current situation is highlighted in The Guardian - the legal difference between data and metadata is - the embarrassing contents of your medical records are “data” and require a warrant, but the fact that you placed a call to a GP clinic on Monday, were emailed by a pathology lab on Wednesday, Googled for pharmacies near work, and then spent the next three days trying to Skype ex-girlfriends, is metadata – and doesn’t need a warrant.
We can all see what a slippery slope this is.
![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/7953149.jpg?411)
- This is not a smokescreen for the government to back away from Boof's signature policy of repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination
- While there is no indication our level of security has changed since 2001, there is some vague notion that it will in 5 years time because a small number of Australians have been fighting in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries.
- The changed is needed because ISPs already keep this data (but not for 2 years) and it is valuable to Police and Security services who can already access it
- Despite not knowing what Metadata is, how powerful it can be in tracking and profiling people, and not yet knowing exactly what will be collected and targeted, the government feels this is essential to ward off an unknown, poorly identified threat
Asking us to believe all these things relies on a great deal of trust, and the truth is no one trusts or believes this government. It is not just the broken promises (or the insistence that they have kept all their promises), it is not just the secrecy and the contempt with which the government (led by 'Captain Feathersword' Morrison) holds all Australians and their right to what the government is doing in our name, it is not just the repeated buffoonery and ineptitude, it is not just the arrogance... it is, to be completely honest, all those things.
After a year in government they have delivered a promise (repeal the price on carbon) which very few other than Tony Abbott were pleased about. They are bending over backwards to 'stop the boats' (which isn't working, is needlessly traumatising thousands, and still a murder remains unsolved). They have reconfigured their three word slogans and put them to work on tragedies such as that involving MH17 (Bring them Home). They withdraw plans to repeal section 18C of the Racial discrimination act), but they did apologise to Bolt for their broken promise, more than they have done for the rest of us for broken promises (which seems consistent with who they really represent).
Now Abbott is reviving his tired old nationalistic rhetoric about 'Team Australia' - which is the point at which we should be both alert and alarmed.
![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/3303679.jpg?395)
It was recently flagged that the government wanted to change a basic tenet of our legal system... taking away the assumption of innocence and replacing it with a duty to prove they are not terrorists should any Australian return from an identified country. The current proposal has identified Iraq and Syria, but should such legislation be passed additional countries may be included in the future.
As Andrew Zammit (a researcher at Monash University’s Global Terrorism Research Centre) says:
This reversal of the burden of proof departs from Australia’s legal traditions and is unlikely to address the terrorist threat effectively. If state counter-measures to the threat are heavy-handed rather than carefully calibrated, they risk harming innocent people and delegitimising necessary counter-terrorism efforts.
Unfortunately, it’s looking doubtful that the proposed reforms will leave Australia with the most effective and appropriate laws to address the threat.
Should this principle be extended from visiting and then returning from an identified country, to.... visiting and returning from an identified website or chatroom or online forum... that's when our freedoms (which these moves are supposed to protect) are gone.