Australian local council intercepted phone, email data to hunt litterbugs
scmagazine.com.au
scmagazine.com.au
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm [2]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053039/Council-use-...
This is exactly why we should be very careful about giving sweeping powers to authorities under the guise of "terror".
Therefore all actions and provisions by local government will have a characteristic that provides the authority to access metadata for all citizens on the single signature of the enquirers supervisor. The enquirer can be any paid employee of the council who has a working title.
Any license, fee, ambiguity on any bylaw compliance, planning decision and so on can, because it has a fiduciary component, lead to a legally performed metadata query on any citizen.
And the citizenry I have met are, I am afraid, oblivious to these matters.
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/resources/referendums/2013-l...
http://www.councilreferendum.com.au/
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representati...
As I've alluded to, the element of this that pertains to privacy is the incorporation into the Australian Constitution of Council fiduciary compliance. It has been law since 2007 in Australia that in any question impacting the federal taxing power authority conferred by the constitution, such queries can be made as a matter if course, as long as permission is obtained from a single signing supervisor.
It has been law since 2007 in Australia that in any question impacting the federal taxing power authority conferred by the constitution, such queries can be made as a matter if course, as long as permission is obtained from a single signing supervisor.
What exactly does "federal taxing power authority" mean, and under what possible interpretation does that mean that a body funded by the federal government suddenly gets the power to subpoena phone records and tap email?
There are plenty of other federally funded bodies at (AFAIK) don't have that power. Or maybe I'm wrong, and agencies like Screen Australia actually can do that?
(Not that I support this referendum, but that's for different reasons)
I'm fairly convinced that local governments will be motivated to protect their own revenue with methods that are specifically designed to protect the public revenue. Already we are seeing some councils using these methods. The number of accesses must be reported, and these reports form the basis of recent news stories on this subject. It remains to be seen whether there are any real constraints on the volume of queries when and if local governments are directly funded by the federal government.
By federal taxing powers I mean what is generally described in [1]
There is history in the relationship between the Federal and local governments. Reference the Whitlam governments attempt at bringing local government under federal control, which failed, and the Fraser government etc [2]
The COAG meetings provide the mechanism for state funding, through which local councils currently are funded. There is one local government representative present at COAG meetings [3][4]
Part 13 of the Telecommunications Act and access to metadata.[5].
The amendments relevant to warrants for access to content of stored electronic communications and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 2006 are in [6]
1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_basis_of_taxat....
2. http://sydney.edu.au/law/cru/documents/2013/CRU_Report_3_%20...
3. http://www.coag.gov.au/the_federal_financial_relations_frame...
4. http://www.coag.gov.au/reform_agenda
5. http://www.pacificprivacy.com.au/Government%20Surveillance%2...
6. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2006A00040/3bf9cedc-87c1-4...
I do not understand how councils are not already part of the 'public revenue', maybe there is case law on this that I am unaware of?
The explanatory memorandum attached to the referendum explicitly states that the Federal government will have no legal influence over local councils. It also mentions that the referendum is for no other purpose than to grant the council money. As soon as any evidence of what you've described crops up they're going to get their asses handed to them in court as they're acting against their own explicit intention. I can't see the loophole you do at all.
I've spent the last 25 minutes or so going through the Telecommunications Act and it is an absolute shambles when read in context. As I said in another post, there are far simpler ways for the Commonwealth to claim a legal right to monitor us.
If the Australian government wanted to monitor our metadata, or conduct any other sort of surveillance for that matter, they'd probably just do it and then claim external affairs once they're caught. It's far simpler and more effective than to try to engineer a legal loophole like you're describing. It's cynical and it sucks but that's the way these things tend to go.
I provided the links to the amended Telecommunications ( Interception ) Act 2006 as it describes the warrant system required for stored data or content. Not data in transit.
Those agencies that have a more direct linkage to federal funding, for example, the ATO on the input side, and Social Security, for example, Jobcentres on the output side, are those bodies that probe metadata the most it would appear, under the provisions in the Act regarding defrauding the public finances without suspicion of criminality or otherwise, though such a suspicion is in itself also a justification.
While the funding provided to local councils via the states is also public funding, direct funding by the Commonwealth has as its aim efficiency of course, but also control and competitive negotiation between councils. The single representative present at the COAG meetings can only be partly effective at representation given the competition between the states. One size doesn't fit all, and there is a case to be made for greater efficiencies by having direct negotiation with the Commonwealth, and for greater formalisation over things like standards of delivery and varieties of services.
With these advantages also comes responsibility, in things like reporting and budget control. Just as happens with the states that have an interest in maximising funding, and where effectively punitive financial penalties are extracted in future COGM rounds because of either malperformance or political difference, I contend that the pressure upon councils to protect their funding will only increase, as it has with the states, which face competitive constraints. Some will win and some will lose, but maintaining maximum levels is something that we expect in any case.
This is a significant constitutional change I think. Local councils, when directly accountable to the Commonwealth, and as providers of services financed from general Commonwealth revenue, will I think behave more broadly alike in their attitude to income and expenditure, and use the methods already allowed them, and already employed by certain other councils. The linkage between council revenues and the revenues considered exactly in the Telecommunications Act are more direct perceptually.
I think Australians should be cautious about this, and so do some of Australia's politicians as well. [2]
1. http://powerhouse.theglobalmail.org/the-australian-governmen...
2. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/green...
The explanatory memorandum seems to make it pretty clear that the Commonwealth isn't going to rely on the amendment to interfere with local bodies and I think reliance on a council worker's signature as authority to gather data for the Commonwealth would almost absolutely be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine anyway.
Our government can already arguably take what they want anyway under ss51(vi) or (xxix), so I don't really see why an ulterior motive for this is necessary anyway.
Also, I was under the impression that the funding would be grants, so I don't get why you're saying fiduciary relationships are involved here.
I haven't studied constitutional law for a couple of years now so I'm probably behind on bits and pieces, but I'm not getting any warning signs from this referendum at all. It just seems like it's an attempt to cut down on bureaucracy.
(IANAL by the way. Or an exceptionally good law student, so I'm sorry if I've misunderstood everything here)
If I were anybody's ex-wife with a messy divorce and/or a restraining order, I'd be very opposed to all this.
It looks like the journalist is then reaching to connect this with that new "metadata" word they've been hearing so much about.
>“Retrieving a telephone subscriber’s name and address for an investigation into an offence is an important tool," she said.
That was the reply from the spokeswoman and the article provides no accusations of any further "data interception" behavior.
If I didn't know better, I'd say this article is trying to characterize caller id/the phonebook as "intercepting data", sure, it's technically accurate, but the words "caller id" are a lot less scary.
Even then this should only be available for law enforcement, not local fucking councils!
How did we get into this mess?
Illegal advertising - get the details of the number on the poster.
Unregistered pets - maybe they have an 'if found please call ...' tag on the pet, but no pet registration.
People dumping stuff illegally - if you were dumping general household/office waste, you'd probably have letters or bills with your address on it already, but I can think of scenarios where they might only have your email address to go on.
Wiretaps (ie: obtaining content) do require a warrant, and in the state of Victoria, where this is, half of all such applications for warrants are rejected by the magistrate. Getting the name and address of the owner of a phone number is a humdrum law enforcement issue, and really councils should have that power. Getting the list of calls made or where emails have been sent is a more serious violation of privacy (instead of "who owns this?" it's "what do they do with it?"), and I imagine that there's simply a legal loophole there.
The article has an amazing lack of detail and follow-through.
Even if we pretend for 10ms that surveillance is even remotely justifiable and is the only option to deal with pet ownership and littering (!), I am immediately concerned about what accountability and oversight measures are or aren't in place. Local councils are already notoriously rife with corruption, incompetence and abuse of process - that it's so easy for that sort of culture to breed indicates fundamental problems which desperately need addressing before this kind of power could possibly be entertained for such weak institutions...
Astounding.
Would hate for those criminals breaking the law with their unregistered pets considering it costs like maximum $80 per year to register a pet...