MPs Cathy McGowan, Andrew Wilkie and Greens MP Adam Bandt, March 19 – on the left.
Only three Australian ministers opposed the controversial metadata laws, and now the Senate has passed them.
It will surely have a chilling effect on press freedom, but everything – as usual – is cloaked in secrecy.
The government will establish a “public interest advocate” (appointed by the prime minister) and a “journalist information warrant”. And (only) 20 government agencies will be able to access the metadata (law enforcement, security and regulatory bodies). But the new warrant system will be secret, with neither journalists nor sources being advised when the government attempts to obtain their metadata.
What is all the secrecy about?
The public interest advocate will make a submission outlining the public interest argument for refusing a warrant, but will not be able to consult with said journalists or media organisations. Reporters would be forbidden to disclose anything about the “existence or non-existence” of any warrant. Doing so would be punishable by two years imprisonment. Of course there will be punishment.
And don’t forget the possible ten-year jail sentence for the rogue journalist.
There is a complex arrangement of “who can”; who can override; who can issue: who is not allowed to know… blah blah blah. It is basically all convoluted and secret. And the amendments also change the starting point presumption when the judge or the attorney general weighs the issuing of the warrant for “professional journalists” etc. Say again!.
I wonder if the politicians understand what they have signed?
And would these metadata laws pass the “Snowden Test” – i.e. would journalists like Glenn Greenwald be punished if they revealed Edward Snowden-like revelations about Australia? When asked that question, Attorney-General George Brandis says not. Whew what a relief.
But is he correct? I thought many Australian politicians considered Snowden’s revelations shameful and even treasonous. In a speech, Minister Julie Bishop said, “This is unprecedented treachery.”
What if the Snowden-like reports first came from a filmmaker like Laura Poitras – who interviewed Snowden? She’s a filmmaker not a professional journalist.
Also, is Mr Brandis saying that the hypothetical journalist would NOT be punished for disclosing and reporting a whistleblower’s expose of illegal government business, for example, but would be jailed for two years if he or she reports that an agency has a (legal) warrant for collecting another journalists metadata? This really doesn’t make sense at all. Please explain!
The metadata laws are a minefield.
And what is the purpose of a minefield – to scare people off. But, as usual, Canberra tells us it is for our own good.
“We must always be acting to keep our country safe,” the Prime Minister told parliament.
Please recall that on December 19 and 22, 2014, I wrote articles about the Sydney siege, calling gunman Man Haron Monis “metadata Monis,” as it seemed likely that the hostage episode would lead to new laws for the gathering of our personal data.
Man Haron METADATA Monis
I noted that the Sydney Siege has created a perfect storm for more legislation regarding the removal of our freedoms, privacy and possibly internet clampdown. It did not take long for the newly appointed Commissioner (1 Oct. 2014) of the Australian Federal Police – Mr Andrew Colvin – to call for the sweeping metadata laws to be passed.
I was in Sydney this month, when the Lindt Café was re-opened after the Martin Place siege.
Lindt Café (Google)
On Saturday morning (21/3/15) I ventured to Martin Place to buy a cup of coffee. There was a small line of people waiting patiently in the drizzling rain. But fortunately I didn’t have to queue for long as a large security guy waved me in. Inside it was jam-packed with well-wishers, and the curious, like myself.
The Lindt café is a huge square room with doors on all sides. Two sides face the street with glass doors opening to Martin Place and many large windows. There are double glass doors leading to a foyer, and what seemed a third exit on the opposite side. Perhaps there is a kitchen at the back, but it is not visible, and to get to the toilets one must walk upstairs. (It was said that Monis allowed women to go to the toilets.) Unlike one’s local coffee shop, the café is a very large, completely open area of tables and chairs (none of them in booth style) with rows of glass cabinets in which the individual chocolates are displayed.
It struck me as the last place anyone would attempt the holding of hostages – especially for 17 hours and into the night. It indeed felt as though I were in a birdcage.
Everyone was extra-polite in not making any references to the event or asking the staff any questions. It seemed, for that moment, to epitomize peace and civility.
There’s a lovely plaque in the memory of Tori Johnston, shot by Monis, and Katrina Dawson. ABC reporter Brendan Trembath said that after the 29 January inquest, counsel assistant Jeremy Gormley stated “Ms Dawson was struck by six fragments of a police bullet or bullets, which ricocheted from hard surfaces into her body….I’ll not detail the damage done to Ms Dawson other than to say that one fragment struck a major blood vessel. She lost consciousness quickly and died shortly afterwards.”
I wondered what surfaces the bullets had ricocheted off.
UPDATE: Sunday 29 March.
“About 2500 officials across the country will be able to sign off on access to Australians’ phone and internet records under the Abbott government’s new “metadata” laws passed last week.
A detailed analysis by Fairfax Media has found the great majority of people empowered to approve requests for so-called communications metadata are police officers.
Such data can be accessed from telco firms without a warrant, however the application has to be approved by a senior officer or official.”
This is no longer about terrorism. This looks as if this is about petty crime and also possibly just to “watch” people. How do we know whether we are being targeted because we might be critical of government policies? We are not allowed to know who is being looked into. As Christopher Brooks says in his comment: What a chilling realty!
We cannot escape the serious ramifications this creeping surveillance State power will have on the freedom to challenge, criticize and expose the murky secretive activities of our elected dictatorship.
Snowden, Greenwald, Manning, Wikileaks and a growing number of “Whistle-blowers” are setting the example and by their voice and action declaring they will not be cowered into submission.
Most of our fellow Australians do not even figure these events of any relevance to their life.
This interview explains how the mobile phone “Metadata” is used by the CIA in convicting, targeting and assassinating of individuals.
Too bad if you happen to be in proximity to the Iphone that
gets targeted by a Hellfire missile.
ASIO are part of an international intelligence community that are regularly killing innocent people branded as “terrorists” justified by “Metadata”.
What a chilling realty!
We really should be paying much more attention to the revelations that the “Snowden” information has brought out into the light of day.
Today, 23 million odd Australians went about their activities with most having no knowledge or thought that we are complicit in these crimes of murder.
When will Greg Barton be interviewed on the ABC to discuss his “terror” research and explanations of the US drone assassination policy?
Call me Stickybeak but I want to know every detail of the Sydney siege. I want to know why each person was there. I want to know how Monis was able to lock all the doors at the same time. Isn’t it common, after a crime, for the public to be given the particulars?
They said Facebook was in constant use, under the gunman’s supervision, whereby a café guest was asked to request an ISIS flag and an audience with the prime minister. Did that scribe also use her freedom of the keyboard to contact anyone else?
Did Monis tell all the others that they had to keep their hands in sight? (Surely I’m not the only citizen wondering about this.)
He did let some of them go upstairs to the toilets. Did he pee?
(I need the details. If you don’t tell me how he managed his bladder, I’m going to think there is something “off” about this story. If Monis had to go somewhere to pee, even if only the kitchen sink, that would have been a moment that hostages could flee. Or did he just wet the floor. Come on, tell me.)
Was there communication among the 15 to the tune of “How can we overwhelm him?” There was at least one lawyer in the group. Did she try to talk Monis into surrendering? Did everyone figure that Monis was aware that the day would surely end with his capture? Was he praying? Did he try to proselytise the hostages? Did any of the patrons offer him a deal? (I would have.)
What with Channel Seven having its studio right across the street, is there a film of the whole 16 hours’ activity? As Dalia indicates, by nightfall it would have been easy to see in. I want to know if persons can take the chocolate treats from the display cases without a key. Who could get through a whole day without taking one? (Not me. No way.)
As one person got 6 bullet fragments “from police hail,” what did the others get? Was there any ricocheting other than in the fatal case? Did the hostages dive under the tables? (I would have.) With only one target there for a trained marksman to hit, why did police let fly “a volley of fire”? Are there rules of engagement for this sort of thing? It can’t be just luck, can it?
In her original articles on Martin Place (December 19 and 22, 2014), Dalia queried why we were not told earlier in the day that the authorities had identified the gunman as media-mascot Monis. Believe me, we were pretty scared over here in Adelaide. Did someone want us to be scared?
In law school I learned that causing someone to feel threatened can reach the level of criminality. If I were the premiere of NSW and learned that it was a well-known nutjob running the siege, I’d have told the millions of Australians to calm down. Wouldn’t you?
It would be a reasonable bet that our servants who voted for the metadata waste of money:
One: Think that 19 Muslims did 911.
Two: That building 7 is a part of Jamie Packer’s bungleroo project in Sydney.
Three: Would never have heard of Lynch or Wilson (?) in the US Congress
seeking disclosure of the 28 pages of the redacted part of the 911 Commission report to be published, because it allegedly pings another country as being in the 911 mass murder plan. (After all, the CIA arranged many of the ‘Hijackers’ to come from that country and ensured that the US consul issued the Visas)
Four: Have no idea, that Francesco Cooriega, ex president of Italy declared that 911 was a CIA-Mossad operation and all the world’s intelligence agencies knew that the day after 911.
Five: I’m bored and why should I waste my time, they are idiots and if anyone’s data should be monitored 24/7 it should be those in the ACT sheltered workshop as it is well reported that the real serious, dangerous and deadly terrorists are governments. …….. Just look up all the false flags in history and the FBI’s terrorist activities by promoting and facilitating simpletons and misfits to carry out such acts, so they may be caught and justify enhanced budgets and scare the populace into giving away more of its privacy and freedoms with the support of duped politicians.
As I say, boring, most thinking members of the public know that it is all for the benefit of psychopathic control freaks and part of the global corporate fascist’s plans as exposed to Dr. Day in March 1969 by Dr. Dunegan. [Ref: search ‘NWO exposed by insider March 1969’ ] Note that section of the report exposing part of the plan, being to create terrorism to make governments (and coward politicians) conform to their insidious fascist plans which of course is sponsored by our friendly mass media presstitutes and shock jocks……… One would think that none of them have their own children, who are being condemned to a world of fascist totalitarian slavery run by banks and corporates. The Nestle seniors are now claiming that corporates own all the water, that they should get it of a pittance ands screw the public by having to buy bottled drinking water.