Australian AG Insists New Anti-Terror Law Only Allows What It Allows; Refuses To Say What It Allows

from the democracy-in-action dept

What ASIO would be empowered to do is that which is authorized by the warrant, which is, in turn, governed by the terms of the Act.

Thank you for your opaque and utterly unhelpful response.

Anyone — including journalists, whistleblowers, bloggers and others — who "recklessly" discloses "information ... [that] relates to a special intelligence operation" faces up to 10 years' jail.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Yesterday we told you about just one of the troubling aspects of a proposed "anti-terror" law in Australia, in that under a single warrant, ASIO, the intelligence gathering organization, could effectively monitor the entire internet . During some Parliamentary discussions on this, Senator Scott Ludlam tried to add an amendment limiting the number of computers that could be monitored under a single warrant. Brandis' "contribution" to the debate on this was to accuse Ludlam of being a "liar" for claiming that the law would allow the tapping of the entire internet under a single warrant and then... refusing any further explanation. The exchange is really quite incredible . Ludlam says he'd be happy if, in fact, his understanding of their previous conversation was in error, and thus wished for clarification. Brandis responds:Holy tautology Batman! Ludlam appears reasonably sarcastically frustrated in return:He asks further specific questions about what the law would cover and Brandis repeats: "I don't have anything to add to my previous answer." It's basically a giant "fuck you" to anyone wanting to make sure that the law isn't overly broad and doesn't allow spying on the entire internet. Remember, Brandis claims that was a lie, but refuses to clarify beyond the "utterly unhelpful" statement he made.Unfortunately, despite all of that insanity, the bill still passed, without Ludlam's amendment, meaning that this is likely to be the law in Australia soon. And, of course, there are other troubling aspects to the law beyond just being able to monitor everything on a single warrant. As many people have pointed out, there's a free-speech destroying provision that would allow for 10 years of jail time for whistleblowersanyone (including journalists) who repeat what the whistleblowers revealed.In short, Australia is guaranteeing that not only will they not have their own Edward Snowden but they won't have their own Glenn Greenwald, either. Combine that with the massive new powers to spy on everyone with a single warrant, and Australia justexpanded the surveillance state, and put a gag order on anyone who wants to expose its abuses.

Filed Under: anti-terror, australia, george brandis, journalism, privacy, scott ludlam, warrants, whistleblowing