Australia’s national security laws permitting hacking by intelligence agencies and retention of personal web and phone data are breaking new ground around the world and raise significant privacy concerns, privacy groups have warned.



Carly Nyst, legal director of Privacy International told Guardian Australia that the standards being set by western governments around the world “are trickling down in a really dangerous way”, with Australia in some respects leading the trend.

The federal government succeeded in passing the first tranche of national security legislation in September, which introduces broad warrant powers for Asio to infiltrate and modify computers.

A second tranche relating to other police and Asio powers is currently being considered by a parliamentary committee, while a third tranche is likely to be introduced relating to mandatory data retention of phone and internet records.

Nyst said: “In some senses, particularly with the computer access warrants, Australia is leading the trend,” she said.

“The Asio computer access warrants is a really frightening step and one that seems to have gone by without the blink of an eye. I think that’s something we’re going to see that increasingly common in other countries now.”

“We’re very concerningly heading in a direction in which the internet is seen as a place in which bad things happen and is almost a conductor of illegal activity.”

The federal government has argued that the first tranche of national security legislation is a necessary update of the powers of Australia’s intelligence agencies.

The immigration minister, Scott Morrison, who is a member of cabinet’s national security committee, told Sky News on Thursday “we need next-generation laws to deal with next-generation terrorists”.

Nyst said the looming third tranche of national security laws – which are expected to relate largely to mandatory data retention – are also going against the trend of many European nations, where data retention laws have been struck down or faced a major public backlash.

“Australia’s actions are reflective of what most countries would like to be doing. But I think many are realising the real risk that they’re placing to personal privacy, and it’s a real shame that Australia seems to be ignoring that aspect of it altogether,” she said.

The attorney general, George Brandis, has said mandatory data retention was necessary because of its value as an investigative tool for law enforcement agencies. The federal government has circulated a proposal with industry groups that would require telecommunications companies to retain certain types of phone and web data for two years.

But Jon Lawrence, the executive officer of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said there was no need for the government to rush through legislation about data retention without going through a proper consultation process.

“The problem that they feel they need to fix with this data retention legislation is by no means urgent.

“To try and wave it through under the current terror emergencies … is really quite dishonest and I think the government needs to be called on that.”

“We really need Labor to stand up on this one and say ‘look, this needs proper, comprehensive, time-consuming scrutiny’.”

On Monday, the British government announced that it would make changes to British law to force police to obtain warrants before accessing journalists’ phone records, after it was revealed that some had been obtained in order to expose sources in police investigations.

Guardian Australia asked the attorney general whether the government would consider introducing similar safeguards in Australia.

The attorney general referred questions to his department. A spokesman said: “The government is consulting with industry and counterparts, both domestic and international, on data retention and is not providing running commentary on these consultations or the policy development process.”

“Law enforcement agencies may only authorise access to telecommunications data where it is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law or a law imposing a pecuniary penalty. As such, these powers will not be available where there is no criminal or pecuniary penalty law to enforce. However, where a person does commit a criminal offence, it is appropriate that law enforcement agencies have the ability to investigate and prosecute that conduct.”