Data retention: Wizardry or Incompetence.

Firstly, let's define what's happening here in 25 words or less... You might have got to the term 'data retention' and already tuned out... I don't blame you. It sounds boring, it is boring, and it is an incredibly and fundamentally important issue.

So what is it: The proposed Data Retention Legislation will require service providers i.e. private companies (like Telstra or your local ISP) to retain, for up to two years, 'metadata' (we will get to what that is) that tracks your telecommunications use. That is tracking and recording every phone call, location of, website use, and tracking of emails to and from every man, woman and child in the nation.This information is purported to be essential to stopping a future impending wave of crime or terrorism.

Tony Abbot said this: "If we don't keep this data, our crime fighting agencies and the police are flying blind." Certainly a great message of fear from our illustrious leader and his party.

What is it really about though? Let's start with METADATA. The word is thrown around a lot and our revered attorney general George Brandis recently told parliament that "this is a term that does not have a precise definition. It is a description rather than a definition.". No George, it actually does have a precise meaning, and let's hope you understand that BEFORE drafting legislation. Laws tend to be defined by precise definitions

So here it is: METADATA is DATA that describes OTHER DATA. Not that hard was it George?

So in the case of tracking a phone call for example: What you say on the call would be classed as PRIMARY DATA and everything else about the phone call: the time of the call; who you called; where you were when making the call; how long the call lasted; how much it cost; who paid for it; who owns the account; where the account holder lives; who they are married to; where they work; and so on and so forth... you get the idea: ALL THAT IS METADATA.

So in no particular order let's discuss the advantages and disadvantages:

No one would deny that increased foresight and awareness of criminal terrorist behavior would be a good thing for law enforcement. Advantage.

Achieving this increased awareness is dependent on one overriding principle. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DATA RETENTION IS CONTINGENT ON ENSURING THAT 100% OF EVERY PIECE OF DATA TRANSMITTED IN AND OUT AND AROUND THE COUNTRY IS RETAINED AND ANALYSED.
Here's where it all falls apart. The legislation describes 'in scope' and 'out of scope' data.

No self respecting terrorist or criminal organisation is going to use a channel of communication that falls inside the scope of the data retention legislation. They are going to use methods outside the scope the legislation therefore rendering the purpose of the legislation inert.

The scheme describes that if you have an email account with say, BIGPOND then your metadata and activity will be tracked. If you opt to use an international email provider then it won't? What sort of incompetence is this? Yes, MR TERRORIST I know which one I will use.

...and then there is ENCRYPTION: technology available to every user on the internet. Available to encrypt data to and from internet connected devices so you have no idea what activity if any is being conducted. So, MR TERRORIST could conceivably create an encrypted 'tunnel' that connects to an endpoint outside the country, browse the web, make phone calls, send emails while all the time being outside the scope of the data retention legislation.

If that's not enough it's going to cost you and I around half a billion dollars to implement for little or no real benefit to national security. It is also going to significantly increase the operating costs of service providers, who will ultimately pass those costs onto you, the consumer, or fold as a number of providers are already doing because of compliance barriers.

Finally, there are the philosophical principles of privacy. In a world where our whole lives are on display people tend to treat this as nebulous, but privacy is a very real human need. It goes a long way to making us feel secure and safe, something every individual has a right to. People who dismiss this concern with the adage 'if you aren't doing something wrong you have no need to fear' need to reassess their idea that boundaries for human behaviour are fixed... They aren't. What is legal and acceptable now only changes because someone makes a law. It is law that shapes our social and national identity and our perception of who we are in the context of the greater international community.

In the end this story looks like legislation that is designed to surveil free citizens of Australia for little or no benefit to national security. A conspiracy theory might undertake that this is already known by the government and that national security is not the point. The alternative is even more preposterous, that the people designing the legislation have such a limited understanding of the implications and technological restrictions that they verge on incompetent. ( I personally think this is more likely) There is so much wrong with this idea we don't need any conspiracies to prove the point.