China, for example, now requires all mobile phone users to submit facial recognition scans when they register new SIM cards. China also leads the world in installed CCTV cameras, many of which now employ facial recognition. Eight of the top ten cities with the most surveillance cameras per person are to be found in China (London and Atlanta are the other two). Chongqing comes first, with 2.58 million surveillance cameras covering 15.35 million people. Another straw in the wind is provided by the police bureau in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou. It wants people to use facial recognition to check that messages from friends are genuine. If this approach became widespread in China, it would see facial recognition built into the fabric of social relationships. China hopes to consolidate its lead in this area by shaping UN facial recognition standards. Instead of safeguarding privacy, the standard is all about making surveillance easier.

It’s not just China that is embracing the technology as a convenient way to keep tabs on people. France wants to use facial recognition as part of a national identity system. In the French town of Lyon, a driver has been found guilty purely on the basis of a facial recognition system that said his face matched an image captured by a CCTV camera during a theft. In Spain, a bus company has a pilot project that lets people pay by using their face. Once the system recognizes an individual, the money is deducted from their account. There are also moves in the EU to extend the use of facial recognition by the police, for example enabling pan-EU searches for matches.

Around the world, other applications of facial recognition are being implemented or considered. As Privacy News Online reported recently, in Australia the government has proposed using facial recognition for online age verification for pornography and gambling Web sites visited by Australians. New Zealand’s police force is bringing in a “state of the art” facial recognition system. In what would be a dramatic shift in US domestic policy, Homeland Security wants to expand facial recognition checks to include all US citizens arriving to and departing from the country. Meanwhile, it has emerged that the US military has built up a database of 7.4 million identities including facial images, irises, fingerprints and DNA data. The idea is to create a biometric dragnet of anyone who has come in contact with the US military abroad. And as the New York Times showed, public CCTV feeds and low-cost cloud computing resources can be used for facial recognition on the cheap.

However, just as governments rush to embrace the technology, so there is increasing concern by activists, businesses, and officials at local and international levels, about its impact on privacy. In the US, San Francisco, Oakland and Portland have all brought in various restrictions on the use of facial recognition systems. The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency released a paper, “Facial recognition technology: fundamental rights considerations in law enforcement“. The head of the EU’s independent data protection authority, Wojciech Wiewiórowski, wrote an article entitled “Facial recognition: A solution in search of a problem?” in which he pointed out that the region’s data protection law, the GDPR, already covers facial recognition. Potentially, its use in the EU might be illegal, or at least highly circumscribed in public places. It will require cases brought to EU courts to lay down exactly what impact the GDPR has on facial recognition technologies. Wiewiórowski explains why so many important issues are involved:

A person’s face is a precious and fragile element her identity and sense of uniqueness. It will change in appearance over time and she might choose to obscure or to cosmetically change it – that is her basic freedom. Turning the human face into another object for measurement and categorisation by automated processes controlled by powerful companies and governments touches the right to human dignity – even without the threat of it being used as a tool for oppression by an authoritarian state.

Moreover, it tends to be tested on the poorest and most vulnerable in society, ethnic minorities, migrants and children.

Where combined with other publicly available information and the techniques of Big Data, it could obviously chill individual freedom of expression and association.

Wiewiórowski points out that this is not just a limited technical issue, but part of a much larger discussion about privacy in the digital world:

We need to assess not only the technology on its own merits, but also the likely direction of travel if it continues to be deployed more and more widely. The next stage will be pressure to adopt other forms of objectification of the human being, gait, emotions, brainwaves. Now is the moment for the EU, as it discusses the ethics of AI and the need for regulation, to determine whether – if ever – facial recognition technology can be permitted in a democratic society. If the answer is yes, only then do we turn questions of how and safeguards and accountability to be put in place.

As that comment makes clear, Wiewiórowski believes that one possible result of court cases might be that facial recognition technology will not be permitted at all in the EU. Although that would be an extreme outcome, it rightly underlines the immense power such systems possess, and the potential harm they can cause. The fact that they can also be useful and beneficial in some circumstances emphasizes just how hard it is going to be to strike the right balance, and to find the right legal framework for controlling facial recognition systems.

Featured image by US Customs and Border Protection.

The post Roll-out of facial recognition by governments around the world accelerates as privacy experts sound the alarm appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

“[…] Home Affairs is developing a Face Verification Service which matches a person’s photo against images used on one of their evidence of identity documents to help verify their identity. The Face Verification Service complements the Document Verification Service by preventing the use of stolen as well as fake identity information. This could assist in age verification, for example by preventing a minor from using their parent’s driver licence to circumvent age verification controls.”

While this “protect the children” argument may seem compelling on the surface, Australia’s real intention here is to expand the use of facial recognition technology and build a database of Australian internet users’ porn and gambling habits.

Australia seeks to expand their use of facial recognition surveillance technology under the guise of protecting the children from pornography and gambling

The Australian government seems to have the opinion that facial recognition technology should be absolutely everywhere – despite the fact that facial recognition technology still does show biases and provide false results. In their proposal, the Department of Home Affairs even admits both their long term goal to make sure that facial recognition technology is absolutely everywhere and how far off the normal use case of facial recognition technology their plan really is:

“Whilst they are primarily designed to prevent identity crime, Home Affairs would support the increased use of the Document and Face Verification Services across the Australian economy to strengthen age verification processes.”

Facial recognition technology is on the rise around the world

Australia already has some facial recognition technology that is used by law enforcement; It’s worth noting that this plan by the Department of Home Affairs is absolutely meant to expand Australia’s facial recognition technology programs beyond the oversight of courts. Unlike the United States which already has it, Australia’s Parliament is currently planning to vote on a database of millions of faces gathered from licenses and passports around the country. Now, it seems that Home Affairs would like to update that database with a timestamp of every instant that you view pornography or gambling online. Of course, the database would also include what type of pornography or gambling site this heinous age verification process happened on. The insistence on an age verification method that can be tied back to individuals’ identities, and all the privacy concerns that come with it, is not unique to Australia.

For years, the United Kingdom has considered and even announced that it was launching a similar online age verification scheme that would have required buying “porn passes” from corner stores while also showing state issued identification for verification. Australia’s plan is admittedly a little more high tech – which carries with it the fear that Australia’s sometimes technology and logic incompetent politicians will wave in this new expansion of facial recognition surveillance without batting an eye.

The post Australia proposed using facial recognition technology for online gambling and pornography age verification appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

AI-based predictive policing systems widely used in US and UK, despite concerns about privacy, and flaws in the approach

Bill That Would Restore Net Neutrality Moves Forward Despite Telecom’s Best Efforts to Kill it

HR 1644, the Save the Internet Act of 2019 seeks to restore  net neutrality in the United States. HR 1644 has made it past its first legislative hurdle in the House of Representatives.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvyqvm/bill-that-would-restore-net-neutrality-moves-forward-despite-telecoms-best-efforts-to-kill-it

5 Reasons why AMP for email is bad

Google AMP hasn’t been the most popular thing on the internet and now that they’re bringing it to email, not everyone is happy. This change will cause your mailbox to become a platform for marketers and advertisers.

https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/amp-email-bad-idea/

Australia ‘Absolutely Considering’ Jail Time for Tech Execs Who Can’t Scrub Hate Off Their Platforms

Australian Attorney General Christian Porter told GizModo that Australia was “absolutely considering” jail time penalties for executives who fail to remove terrorist content from their online platforms.

https://gizmodo.com/australia-absolutely-considering-jail-time-for-tech-exe-1833578817

Tech companies not ‘comfortable’ storing data in Australia, Microsoft warns

Microsoft is just one of many companies that are uncomfortable storing company data in Australia despite new laws. Australia has passed laws forcing companies to comply with such requests.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/27/tech-companies-not-comfortable-storing-data-in-australia-microsoft-warns

MEP errors mean European copyright law may not have passed

After the much anticipated Copyright Directive was passed by EU Parliament yesterday, 11 MEPs indicated that they voted incorrectly. That is enough to change the vote and remove the most controversial parts Article 13 and Article 11, but the incorrect vote stands currently.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/mar/27/mep-errors-mean-european-copyright-law-may-not-have-passed

Facebook to Fight Belgian Ban on Tracking Users (and Even Non-Users)

Belgium court believes that Facebook “still violates the fundamental rights of millions of residents of Belgium.” Facebook disagrees and is fighting back for their right to track Belgium Facebook visitors, even those that aren’t registered users of Facebook.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/facebook-attack-of-belgian-order-on-user-tracking-gets-hearing

The post Privacy News Daily | March 27, 2019 appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

“We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right thing to do to block them.”

In fact, some of the blocked sites have been unfairly lambasted in mainstream media as “refusing” to take down offending material. Let’s be clear, each and every one of the blocked websites operates lawfully – that includes removing illegal material when requested. These internet service providers (ISPs) in Australia and New Zealand have taken it upon themselves to play judge, jury, and executioner in their condemnation of these websites and their visitors just for exercising free speech.

In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon themselves to enact censorship

Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:

“This is an unprecedented move by the telecommunications industry, but one that they all agree is necessary.”

CIO additionally confirmed that the ISPs are working together to ban the same sites.

In Australia, censorship also happens at the whim of the internet providers

Unsurprisingly, the over-reactive censorship has even started spreading around the world. Starting Monday the 18th, Telstra and Vodafone in Australia have also implemented these blocks network wide – that means even the many Australians using Vodafone reseller networks are affected by Vodafone’s censorship decisions. Of course, Facebook is not one of the sites that has been blocked.

Are these blocks due to legal request, or is Telstra now censoring entire sites due to internal policies? Setting a very dangerous precedent

— James Franklin (@James23235689) March 18, 2019

Vodafone has even confirmed that they were told to place the blocks, and they will remove the blocks when they are “advised” that the illegal content has been removed.

Censoring free speech is never “the right thing to do”

The internet providers in Australia and New Zealand are sliding down an incredibly slippery slope against free speech. Previously, in Australia and other parts of the world like Russia and Philippines, ISPs would not censor access to websites unless clearly told to by the government. The precedent that internet providers can decide when to start blocking sites seemingly arbitrarily has now both been set and abused… All in the name of “doing the right thing.”

Hi Matt, Vodafone Australia has temporarily blocked sites known to be actively hosting footage of the shootings in Christchurch. We believe it's absolutely the right thing to do. When we receive advice the content has been removed from these sites, we will then remove the block.

— Vodafone Australia (@VodafoneAU) March 18, 2019

Simply put: It’s not the right thing to do. Free speech is an absolute concept and by that virtue alone – this is not the right thing to do.

A full list of blocked websites can be found below:

• voat.co
• 4chan.org
• 8ch.net
• liveleak.com
• archive.is
• bitchute.com
• zerohedge.com
• kiwifarms.net
• eztv.is
• dissenter.com
• documentingreality.com
• bestgore.com
• archive.fo

Please let us know in the comments below if any blocked websites are missing from this list.

The post ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

One reason the legislation was rushed through in its present dangerous form is that the main opposition party in Australia thought it would be able to improve things afterwards. Indeed, 12 days after the encryption law was passed, Australia’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security announced it would begin a review of the law. Even though leading technology companies and civil liberties organizations are all strongly against the law, it’s not clear the review will lead to any radical changes. Australia’s Digital Rights Watch group wants the entire law repealed:

Encryption is not a barrier to a safe society – quite the opposite – it is a form of protection against criminal acts, including state-sponsored hacking. Encryption plays a role in protecting our digital infrastructure, such as the banking system, the electricity grid and mass transit systems. This is the future of warfare and encryption is one of our few defences against criminal and aggressive acts. It is an important line of defence against bad actors, and we weaken it at our peril.

While Australia continues to argue about the use of “traditional” encryption backdoors, two senior officers from the UK’s signals intelligence agency, GCHQ, have published an interesting proposal that takes a different approach. It contains some welcome statements, such as: “Targeted exceptional access capabilities should not give governments unfettered access to user data.” They say they don’t propose that governments should have access to some kind of “global key” that can unlock any user’s data. They point out that “Government controlled global key escrow systems would be a catastrophically dumb solution in these cases.” They go on to propose what they see as an alternative to weakening strong encryption: silently adding law enforcement agents to otherwise encrypted conversations:

The service provider usually controls the identity system and so really decides who’s who and which devices are involved – they’re usually involved in introducing the parties to a chat or call. You end up with everything still being end-to-end encrypted, but there’s an extra ‘end’ on this particular communication.

They say this is no more intrusive than the technique used in traditional voice intercept solutions – clipping on extra wires to circuits – that it doesn’t give any government power they shouldn’t have, and does not require backdoors that weaken security. That all sounds promising, but experts have criticized the idea for various reasons. For example, Susan Landau, a professor in the Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, says:

alligator clips, as they’re called on this side of the Atlantic, intercept communications, but they do so for communications for which the service provider has not made a commitment of providing end-to-end encryption. The difference between alligator clips and the proposed virtual crocodile clips [of GCHQ’s suggestion] is that in the latter, the service provider is being asked to change its communication system to provide exactly what the end-to-end encryption system was designed to prevent: access by a silent listener to the communication.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is also unconvinced. A post on its site points out that for a system involving these kind of “ghost” participants to work would require client software to lie:

In WhatsApp’s UX [user experience], users can verify the security of a conversation by comparing “security codes” within the app. So for the ghost to work, there would have to be a way of forcing both users’ clients to lie to them by showing a falsified security code, as well as suppress any notification that the conversation’s keys had changed. Put differently, if GCHQ’s proposal went into effect, consumers could never again trust the claims that our software makes about what it’s doing to protect us.

Fiddling with the code in this way would increase the risk that new vulnerabilities would be introduced, and that other actors could use the same ghost function to eavesdrop on supposedly secure conversations. That’s obviously bad for users and society in general. But the EFF is right to emphasize the fundamental problem with the GCHQ proposal: that it would undermine trust in an application and the company that made it – hardly a desirable result. As well-known security expert Bruce Schneier puts it: “Communications companies could no longer be honest about what their systems were doing, and we would have no reason to trust them if they tried.”

Matthew Green, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, says providers of messaging software are aware that this is a potential weakness, and are already working to prevent users being misled by client software. The GCHQ proposal therefore amounts to a government agency ordering a software company not to harden their systems against that kind of attack. Green warns that this could be just the start of governments vetting software: “In the worst-case outcome, we’ll be appointing agencies like GCHQ as the ultimate architect of Apple and Facebook’s communication systems.”

The author of the EFF post mentioned above has co-written another, more technical critique of the GCHQ proposal. The analysis sees four likely routes for detecting when the ghost is present: binary reverse engineering, cryptographic side channels, network-traffic analysis, and crash log analysis. The post also points out a different kind of flaw in the idea:

There’s another pretty glaring problem with the ghost proposal that we’re not going to examine here – it only works with text or asynchronous protocols. It’s not immediately clear to us how it could be adapted to real-time audio or video communications.

As the various critiques above make clear, however superficially attractive the GCHQ proposal might seem, it is problematic from multiple viewpoints. It certainly doesn’t resolve the long-standing tension between a desire for the authorities to have access to communications protected with strong encryption, and the requirement for the public, businesses and government to be able to use the Internet as safely as possible.

Featured image by Max Pixel.

The post The latest twist on adding backdoors to encryption is spooky – and dangerous appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

In July 2017, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull held a press conference to announce that the government was drafting legislation that would compel device manufacturers to assist law enforcement in accessing encrypted information. In May of this year, Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Angus Taylor restated the government’s priority to introduce legislation and traveled to the United States to speak with companies based there.

Today’s letter, signed by 76 organizations, companies, and individuals, asks leaders in the government “not to pursue legislation that would undermine tools, policies, and technologies critical to protecting individual rights, safeguarding the economy, and providing security both in Australia and around the world.”

Whether it’s online banking and purchases, secure communications with loved ones and colleagues, storage of sensitive data, or any number of other basic activities, we each rely on strong encryption to keep our personal information safe. Encryption and other digital security tools protect us against crimes like identity fraud, and in some circumstances, they provide important protections against physical harms.

“Australia is facing a choice on cybersecurity and encryption: real security or false,” said Nathan White, Senior Legislative Manager at Access Now. “The country can either be the testing ground for policies that undermine privacy and security in the digital era, or it can be a champion for human rights, leveraging its relationships to raise cybersecurity standards for the next generation. The world is watching.”

In addition to the letter delivered by experts today, thousands of concerned individuals in Australia and around the world have joined the call for members of Parliament to reject any proposal that undermines the security of tools and devices we all depend on. You can join them in taking action by signing the petition at SecureAustralia.org.au.

The post Coalition calls on Australia’s government to reject plans to undermine encryption appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

“The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.”

What’s revealed here is a dangerous misunderstanding of the laws of mathematics. To think that the laws of a country could somehow “beat” the natural laws of mathematics is exactly the mentality that makes encryption backdoors seem like a good idea. Now that it’s clear what these politicians think about mathematics, their stances on encryption make a lot more “sense.”

Turnbull wants to make 2+2=5 in Australia

Australia is pushing their anti-math, anti-encryption message to the Five Eyes, and even the rest of the world. In places such as the Netherlands, data mining and surveillance laws were just passed this past week. At this point, it seems unlikely that their anti-encryption ways will spread far, given that the United Nations has come out in support of end-to-end encryption without backdoors, as has the EU. Additionally, the United States Human Rights Council has also ruled that internet access to the open internet is a basic human right – and encryption is a key part of that. Australia, as Prime Minister Turnbull has revealed in spades, literally wants to make 2+2=5 in their quest for big brother surveillance powers. A politician that doesn’t understand the laws of mathematics shouldn’t be in the power to make such decisions. This isn’t a case of forgive for they know not what they do, though. At the end of the day, we do see certain governments such as the UK, Russia, and now Australia diving headlong into a world where the laws of mathematics are denied.

Like this article? Get notified by email when there is a new article or signup to receive the latest news in the fight for Privacy via the Online Privacy News RSS Feed.

The post Australian Prime Minister Turnbull: The laws of mathematics don’t apply in Australia appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

“I will raise the need to address ongoing challenges posed by terrorists and criminals using encryption. These discussions will focus on the need to cooperate with service providers to ensure reasonable assistance is provided to law enforcement and security agencies.”

It is still entirely unclear how these politicians would propose forcing tech firms to be able to decrypt messages without a backdoor – but it is clear that they will be discussing in earnest at the upcoming closed door meeting of these five countries’ security arms.

Australia to push tech companies for a way to read encrypted messages, continues to deny that such a thing is a backdoor

Beyond the conundrum of how to technically provide a way to decrypt encrypted messages without an encryption backdoor… What about citizens’ right to privacy? Earlier this month, as Australia’s plans to talk about encrypted messaging at the upcoming Five Eyes meeting was first being unveiled, Australia’s cyber security special advisor, Alastair MacGibbon, tried to justify the move by saying that:

“From time to time we do expect our privacy to be breached. From time to time you would expect a law enforcement agency to break into a private communication online.”

That is to say – The government is still actively trying to peddle the poisonous idea that privacy is not an absolute thing. Brandeis will likely find an ally in the United Kingdom, where Theresa May has called for censorship and encryption backdoors of their own. Russia is even attempting to ban Telegram, their homegrown encrypted messaging app. In sharp contrast, politicians in the Europe have been calling for “state-of-the-art,” end-to-end encryption and a clear lack of backdoors.

Like this article? Get notified by email when there is a new article or signup to receive the latest news in the fight for Privacy via the Online Privacy News RSS Feed.

The post Australia wants to be able to read your encrypted messages appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

Instead, AFP commissioner Mike Colvin confirmed that an investigator illegally accessed metadata about a journalist’s call records. The journalist has not been informed of the federal breach of his privacy; furthermore, the investigator that failed to seek a warrant has not been reprimanded at all. The official AFP reasoning from their internal review is that the illegal metadata breach happened due to “human error” and that there is no evidence of “ill will.” The Commonwealth Ombudsman is expected to carry out an audit of the incident next week.

Reminder: Australian ISPs store metadata on everybody and police don’t generally need a warrant to view it

Australians that don’t daylight or moonlight as journalists don’t even have the protection of a Journalist Information Warrant. Their metadata, which is officially being stored by every ISP and telecom on the continent, is openly available to law enforcement that seek it – and apparently with minimal oversight. April 13th, the day when the mandatory metadata retention laws (which even the ISPs and telcos themselves don’t like) officially had to be followed, has been declared Australia’s Get a VPN day. What’s worse, it’s very likely that despite promises to the contrary, civil litigators could have access to this metadata as well for civil cases involving such crimes such as copyright infringement.

There are those that argue that it doesn’t matter if metadata is accessed. Thankfully, as the evidence mounts that metadata is usable for identification, this minority is shrinking. Metadata leaks are serious because metadata is private data. Paul Murphy, from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, commented to ABC.net.au:

“Despite all of the requirements put in place before a Journalist Information Warrant can be granted, the system has failed. This latest example shows that an overzealous and cavalier approach to individual’s metadata is undermining the right to privacy and the right of journalists to work with their confidential sources.”

Journalists deserve the protections they were promised, but so do ordinary Australian citizens.

I'm so glad you're all so worried about journo's privacy rights, not like anyone else's privacy rights should matter yeah

— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf) April 28, 2017

When the government won’t protect your online privacy, you’ll have to do so yourself.

Like this article? Get notified by email when there is a new article or signup to receive the latest news in the fight for Privacy via the Online Privacy News RSS Feed.

The post Australian Federal Police unapologetic after accessing a journalist’s metadata without a warrant appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.

Australian Metadata Retention requirements are “basically a huge Big Brother policy”

According to Junkee, an industry figure said:

“We’re going to end up with this regime of laws that allow the government to access a huge amount of data on its citizens. They are retaining what devices you sent something from, where you were located, what time you sent it and who you sent it to. It’s not too long before you can use that to make the most amazing profile of everything you do. It’s basically a huge Big Brother policy that Australia has walked into.”

By forcing the financial burden of compliance onto the private telecommunication and ISP companies, the government has created a perverse incentive structure. What is undoubtedly going to end up happening in Australia is that lobbyists will push for laws and regulation permitting, like they did in America, spying on their customers. Telecom and ISP lobbies have already tried to argue that web browsing history and app data usage stats are not sensitive information. Now that all of these Australian companies are holding all of this data, at their own cost, they’re going to need to think of ways to make more money from that data – hopefully without following the American example.

Angus Fotheringham of Inabox Group, an Australian telco, said:

“It was so obvious to me that there was very little thought on the part of the regulator on the complexity of this issue on the wholesale side,”

Also, the regulations requiring the storage of two years of metadata does not require proper, encrypted storage techniques – and experts fear that Australian metadata troves will be a high value target for hackers. The Australian government even set aside $130 million to help Australian telcos and ISPs to comply with the new law. Given the burden compliance, it’s entirely possible that some service providers might not even comply. John Stanton, the CEO of Australian association group the Communication Alliance, said:

“There are 250 providers competing for 1 percent of the market. They’re mum and dad operators servicing their local community. Have they really got the smarts to do everything the law requires? In many cases they’ll either exit the industry or they’ll stay and hope they’re never asked for metadata by the government. The focus for the government will be on the top five-ten providers. That’s who they see as the main game. Frankly, I don’t see the regulator having the resources to chase all the other providers.”

On their part, the Australian government downplayed the task at hand; a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s office said:

“The Government’s data retention legislation simply standardised the type of data telecommunications service providers are required to retain and the length of time they need to keep it.”

A stark reminder that they always had access to your metadata, your metadata can definitely reveal private things about your life, and now it’s just more easily query-able.

Like this article? Get notified by email when there is a new article or signup to receive the latest news in the fight for Privacy via the Online Privacy News RSS Feed.

The post Not even the telcos like Australia’s mandatory metadata retention scheme aka the Big Brother policy appeared first on Privacy News Online by Private Internet Access VPN.