Locke Keith: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12280] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am glad that the previous speaker mentioned the question of whether we have a benign strategic environment or are living in a new era of terrorism because in my second reading speech I went through it objectively country by country and although I did not give the exact statistics the pattern is quite clear. It behoves members like Simon Power to come out with counter-statistics. There was greater prevalence of terrorism in the world in the 1970s and 1980s. That is clearly demonstrable. Particularly in the more advanced countries the prevalence was much greater. 
To deal with the other question which was about which countries are invading other countries today and occupying them there is one country that is leading the charge: the United States. That is the reality. In so far as there is a change in the environment it is the danger from the United States invading other countries and occupying them and leading to huge upset throughout the Islamic world. 
To get on to the technological question the technology is different in terms of intercepting emails. One of the problems is that one can intercept millions and millions of emails very easily whereas in previous times the intrusion on privacy was limited by the technology—listening to phone calls transcribing them etc. was very time-consuming. In the Law and Order Committee mobile probes were described which can be put over a particular line to draw down particular emails from a particular person’s email address. One can of course go more broadly than that in terms of interception technology. Emails can be intercepted according to keyword systems or combinations of systems which makes it even more dangerous. 
I will deal briefly with the amendment proposed by Rick Barker set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 to the definition of “other lawful interception authority” in which he goes over the authorisation for the different agencies. At least the police have a reporting procedure and one can get the number of interceptions. There are various controls in relation to the police and that at least is a step forward. The reporting procedure of the Security Intelligence Service is much more sketchy. It just has to report the number and average duration of interceptions. The Government Communications Security Bureau really has no reporting procedures and that is particularly dangerous because as the explanatory note of the amendment states it covers the authority of the Government Communications Security Bureau “for foreign communications to be intercepted without an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation:”. 
That question of computer access—hacking remote access or whatever one wants to call it—was condemned by the Privacy Commissioner in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) which gave authorisations for that sort of thing to groups such as the Government Communications Security Bureau. There is no reason to grant that power. If there is reason to think someone has something dodgy on his or her computer—and it is happening a lot in terms of people involved in child sex pornography—we can go to that person’s residence seize the computer and look at it. One does not need that power of remote access. It is very spooky to a lot of people including the Privacy Commissioner that someone’s computer can be accessed remotely and files can even be altered deleted or changed. That is specific in the Australian legislation. It is not specific in this legislation but it is implied. So one does not even know that the police or the security services have been into one’s computer. 
The complaints procedure becomes very difficult too. The complaints procedure in relation to electronic interception is quite difficult because how does one ever know one has been intercepted to start with even if the results of that interception if they are wrongly used or mistakes are made could very much affect one’s future life if one ends up on some database as being in email communication with some terrorist group or whatever. It can be very damaging if that happens. That is one of the reasons why the Green Party thinks the downsides for civil liberties are actually greater than the upsides. Earlier speakers have said that any sophisticated terrorist or criminal can get round any electronic interception very easily. One uses throwaway cellphones and so on.