National security analyst Dr Anthony Bergin of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote of the government's data retention proposals in the Sydney Morning Herald of August 14. I am a privacy advocate who accepts in fact that law enforcement needs new methods to deal with terrorism. I myself do trust there is a case for greater data retention in order to weed out terrorist preparations, but I reject Bergin's patronising call that "Privacy must take a back seat to security". He speaks soothingly of balance yet he rejects privacy out of hand. As such his argument for balance is anything but balanced.
Suspicions are rightly raised by the murkiness of the Australian government's half-baked data retention proposals and by our leaders' excruciating inability to speak cogently even about the basics. They bandy about metaphors for metadata that are so bad, they smack of misdirection. Telecommunications metadata is vastly more complex than addresses on envelopes; for one thing, the Dynamic IP Addresses of cell phones means for police to tell who made a call requires far more data than ASIO and AFP are letting on (more on this by Internet expert Geoff Huston here).
The way authorities jettison privacy so casually is of grave concern. Either they do not understand privacy, or they're paying lip service to it. In truth, data privacy is simply about restraint. Organisations must explain what personal data they collect, why they collect, how they collect it, and who else gets to access the data. These principles are not at all at odds with national security. If our leaders are genuine in working with the public on a proper balance of privacy and security, then long-standing privacy principles about proportionality, transparency and restraint provide the perfect framework in which to hold the debate. Ed Snowden himself knows this; people should look beyond the trite hero-or-pariah characterisations and listen to his balanced analysis of national security and civil rights.
Cryptographers have a saying: There is no security in obscurity. Nothing is gained by governments keeping the existence of surveillance programs secret or unexplained, but the essential trust of the public is lost when their privacy is treated with contempt.