find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (1-3 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Sydney NSW 2000
· Join a dynamic Firm · Excellent career growth opportunity
View details
In-house lawyer 1-4 PAE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Leading Brand · Report to a Dynamic Legal Counsel
View details
Data Retention Bill should be scrapped, says LIV

Data Retention Bill should be scrapped, says LIV

‘Invasive’ Data Retention Bill

The proposed metadata mandatory retention scheme is overly intrusive, and would be costly and ineffective in preventing serious crime, according to a parliamentary submission by the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV).

“Our mobile and internet devices mean we are more connected to each other than ever, which the Government proposes to exploit by creating a spider web of records,” said LIV president Katie Miller (pictured).

The institute raised more than 30 questions in its submission to an inquiry by the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

The LIV said the “shell of a scheme” failed to address numerous issues and did not recognise the crucial difference between simple measures such as pulling phone records and blanket internet data retention.

“Mandatory data retention is not targeted surveillance... The Internet is not a telephone… An IP address does not identify a person,” the LIV wrote, pointedly.

“The data retention scheme set out in this Bill covers all individuals without any exception or differentiation. It will impact on all Australians; including people under no suspicion whatsoever,” the submission continued.

In our “data hungry world”, access to metadata can reveal as much about a person as access to content, the LIV said.

Katie Miller.Meanwhile, the Bill has not created “meaningful safeguards” by specifying exactly which agencies have access to which personal data under what judicial oversight.

“[Mandatory data retention] is characteristic of a police state,” the LIV wrote, quoting the Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner.

“It is premised on the assumption that all citizens should be monitored. Not only does this completely remove the presumption of innocence … it goes against one of the essential dimensions of human rights and privacy law: freedom from surveillance and arbitrary intrusions into a person’s life.”

The LIV cited the European Court of Justice’s decision in April last year that mass data retention went against fundamental rights to privacy by making people feel that they were under constant government surveillance.

The Bill has also left out important details about the security and timely destruction of retained data, according to the LIV.

The LIV queried why two years was chosen as the retention period when a UK report has clearly demonstrated that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, law enforcement agencies only required data within a three-month period.

Even in the wake of the “recent devastating events in Sydney and Paris”, there was no urgent need for the Data Retention Bill, the LIV argued.

Moreover, there are no ‘silver bullets’ in the fight against terrorism and there is no evidence to support the premise that countries using blanket data retention schemes have less crime than countries using targeted investigation techniques, according to the submission.

In a joint statement released in October last year, the Commonwealth attorney-general, George Brandis, and communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, defended the Bill, saying it did not give law enforcement or intelligence agencies any capacity to access metadata beyond what they already have.

The data collected would be limited, they claimed, as would the range of agencies with access to the information.

The Bill was prompted by technological and business developments that have led to internet providers not holding on to data long enough for law enforcement agencies to carry out their investigations, they said.

“Metadata is vital to nearly every counter-terrorism, counter-espionage, cyber-security, organised crime, murder, rape, kidnapping, child sex abuse and child pornography investigation,” Brandis and Turnbull said, adding that data retention was an “important next step” towards keeping Australia safe.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Data Retention Bill should be scrapped, says LIV
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Unite
Aug 22 2017
Professionals unite in support of marriage equality
The presidents of representative bodies for solicitors, barristers and doctors in NSW have come toge...
Aug 21 2017
Is your firm on the right track for gig economy gains?
Promoted by Crowd & Co. The way we do business, where we work, how we engage with workers, ev...
Scales of Justice, Victorian County Court, retiring judges
Aug 21 2017
Replacements named for retired Vic judges
Two new judicial officers have been appointed in the Victorian County Court, following the retire...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...