Metadata is the most dangerous form of data

Pirate Party Australia condemns comments made by Tanya Plibersek, Labor’s Shadow Foreign Minister, who on Sunday “gave a strong signal she was comfortable with telecommunications companies collecting and storing intercepted data for longer periods in order to assist intelligence agencies in their domestic anti-terror investigations”[1]. Ms Plibersek restated the artificial distinction between “data” and “metadata,” likening the former to the contents of a letter and the latter to the envelope. Pirate Party Australia is critical of this analogy, and does not accept or condone the mandatory retention or use of metadata, on the grounds that it is a gross invasion of privacy.

“The idea that metadata is equivalent to reading the address on an envelope is misleading. A lot of information about us can be gathered by looking at what websites we visit, searches we make, and who we communicate with. Complex webs of relationships, interests, daily routines, and political and religious affiliations can be built solely using metadata,” said Fletcher Boyd, Pirate Party candidate for the Western Australian Senate Election this coming Saturday. “It can be far more valuable than the content itself, and this makes it ultimately more dangerous.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has eloquently pointed out the nature of metadata and just how much it can reveal. “They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don’t know what you talked about,” “They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret,” and “They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don’t know what was discussed” are three eye-opening scenarios provided by the organisation[2].

Pirate Party Australia recently raised concerns that the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) is acting as a “lobbyist” for law enforcement and intelligence agencies[3]. In its submission to the Comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Pirate Party suggested that AGD was caught in a form of regulatory capture, advocating on behalf of the intelligence and police organisations it is meant to regulate[4]. The AGD, unsurprisingly, also submitted to the inquiry, arguing in support of greater interception and access powers for those organisations[5].

“Mass, indiscriminate surveillance is not acceptable in a free and democratic society. It amounts to an invasion of privacy giving information that spy agencies and law enforcement can peruse and evaluate, currently without the restrictions of a warrant, peering into the private lives of ordinary citizens with lax oversight. This is not acceptable,” Mr Boyd continued. “It is disappointing that the two largest political parties are acting as cheer squads for the surveillance state.”

Pirate Party Australia is firmly committed to opposing the warrantless monitoring of Internet use of the general public and believes that anti-terrorism practices should emphasise greater use of informants and targeted infiltration[6]. The Pirate Party is contesting the Senate Election in Western Australia this Saturday, 5 April 2014. Voters can find the Pirate Party listed in column E on the ballot.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/30/labor-spies-tools-terror-plibersek

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters

[3] https://pirateparty.org.au/2014/03/18/attorney-generals-department-remains-asios-puppet/

[4] http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a300017f-f090-4ae7-8c52-21057ff633b7&subId=205093

[5] http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9ebc8894-f431-41d2-8cb0-33395564233c&subId=205373

[6] https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policies/Digital_Liberties#Data_retention