Xrqute
New member
According to one of the country’s largest internet service providers a Data retention scheme could see the average Aussie household have to pay $100 extra per year for their internet connection. The scheme will require telecommunications companies to store customer phone and internet data for two years. The extra cost will come from the extra servers and staff required to store the data for the approx 22 million strong population of Australia.
Telecommunications representatives told a Senate inquiry on Tuesday the government should pay for and manage any scheme as it's not fair for the cost to be passed onto the public, Where it would have to be if the Telco's self managed the data storage.
Clarity has also been called from the federal government on how broad a data retention regime would be.Thus far a broad definition of “metadata” has been used a collection that extends beyond telephone records to internet access, email and internet telephony. Metadata can include the time, location, sender and receiver, and some have argued it could also include URLs and IP addresses accessed.
With metadata volumes doubling every two years, iiNet estimates the cost of complying with a data retention scheme could be $100 million over two years – up from $60 million previously estimated. This would see consumers hit by cost rises of $5 to $10 extra a month – an increase Mr Steve Dalby Chief regulatory officer at iiNet has described this as a “surveillance tax”.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association estimates compulsory data retention could cost the industry $500 million a year – an amount that would be passed on to consumers.
Both iiNet and the AMTA acknowledge the confusion about how broad a data retention regime would be makes estimating any cost rises difficult.
“The communications industry and broader community does not know whether the government is only looking for the data already collected routinely by telephone companies, or is actually seeking the full set of data as set out in their [confidential] briefing paper,” Mr Dalby said. “A definitive statement outlining the government’s requirements would reduce the uncertainty and enable us to more meaningfully respond to any proposed data retention regime.”
Mr Dalby said in his statement that mandatory data retention regimes turn commercial companies into “unwilling agents of the state”.
“IiNet does not agree that it should accept the role proposed by those calling for an onerous data retention regime,” he said. “If we are ultimately compelled by law to collect such data, the government must be responsible for its storage and protection … iiNet has no use for surveillance data, so there is no commercial driver to collect a massive volume of data, indexed to individuals, that we’ll never use.”
Communications Alliance chief executive John Stanton said government proposals for compulsory data retention and anti-piracy measures "have the potential to dwarf the entire red tape reduction achieved across all portfolios”.
Forcing security agencies such as ASIO to pay the cost of administering a scheme would act as “a natural curb against excessive requests”, he said, adding that telecommunications companies lack the expertise to deal with complicated surveillance requests.
ASIO chief David Irvine told the committee last week “the public should not be concerned that there’s going to be gross misuse” of data retention powers. “For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is correct for all your privacy to be invaded for a commercial purpose, and not for me to do so to save your life,” he said. Mr Irvine said the actual content of communications – for example the text of emails – would continue to be accessible only with a warrant.
Being an Australian as I am, I don't like this. One means I'm going to have to pay more for no benefit. Two I've said this before in my article on Russia and the TOR network that I'm pro-privacy and as stated in a quote from the ASIO (Australian version of the CIA or FBI) Chief “the public should not be concerned that there’s going to be gross misuse" what do they define as "Gross" misuse and should i be worried about the Minor misuse of my information?
Internet censorship, Internet users data collection etc are always hot topics around the world. There is always someone out there that wants to control what you can see or track where you go or what you do on the internet they label these acts as acceptable under the interest of "National Security". A person is entitled to use the internet how they wish if they are a suspect in an investigation sure track them but leave the everyday man out of it.
How do you guys feel about this subject? This argument is always waging in one part of the world or another. Post your comments below.
Last edited:
