Wow there are a lot of inaccuracies floating about on this thread. If you're going to criticise metadata, be sure to be technically accurate about what is being collected.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/10/everything-youve-been-told-about-data-retention-is-wrong/

Firstly with Internet, all they're logging is 'Person X had the IP address <something> between time A and time B'. That's it. No browsing history or tin foiled hat. ISP's have been doing this for decades for billing purposes. The legislation sets a min standard to make sure they all do it and retain records for 2 years.

For phone calls and SMS, the data retained is the same as it always has been since the 1920's - Person X called person Y for 5 minutes on this date. The legislation standardises a minimum requirement of what to store and sets a 2 year time before you can delete it.

The intent of metadata laws are for when the fuzz take down a kiddy fiddler computer and get a list of IP addresses on it. They can then quickly pair those with known accounts in Australia. It doesn't work the other way around; they can't surveil your porn fetishes and notify the convent about you.

CASA has always been able to access this information (via a warrant) so they will have no extra than normal. According to the original article, last year CASA had 11 warrants for this stuff.

So do I think it's a good idea granting CASA access to this? Nope. As this thread has demonstrated, there is already a large fracture and mistrust between the safety regulator and the industry it is regulating. I would not consider 11 warrant requests for metadata a difficult task for an organisation with ~ 850+ staff.

If the benefits of metadata access are just some internal efficiencies, I would suggest it would be in CASA's best interest to go through the courts via warrants for access to data. That way, they could move forwards to bridge the gap and try to adopt a relationship with the aviation industry that supports a positive risk free (generative is the buzz word) reporting/safety culture.

That said, if CASA deem timely access to metadata is an overwhelming benefit to aviation safety (for example preventing a crime?), then Skidmore should clearly communicate the reasons behind why they want access.

Edit: I'm actually not an expert on this so if I have any facts incorrect I'll be happy to change them (and my opinion!)

Fairs fair...
 

AS they do unto you so you the citizen should have the same rights.

Mr xxxxxx a CAsA person has committed criminal offence/s. I would like to check his data to see what else has been going on, bit of fishing for info, might lead up a few interesting alleys, might even prevent another crime, might even get a better handle on the issue in question.

Since CAsA condones criminality within its ranks we'll have our work cut out for us.

Would certainly help CAsA in their attempts to denigrate any victim...see their standard statement..'why would you defend this person, we know stuff that you dont know' And with metadata ...and then some. !!:mad::mad:

Scary what they can do already...., now it gets really scary.:eek:

And why is the impression of the "privacy" bit, seem to be only a one way street ?

Are we on the road to National Socialism, as our rights and liberties get steadily eroded.? Its how it all began 80 years ago.
Scary !!

shagpile, since you are full bottle on data collection, please tell us what the secret base out from geraldton is doing?
I heard that it monitored and retained a copy of all internet traffic in australia.
of course I'm a roll of alfoil short of a hat but you get that.
W8

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt

That one?

I'm not a supporter at all of mass surveillance -- worst case just look at what this kind of stuff could be used for if Donald Trump gets elected. But it's important to understand what is being collected so you can take appropriate measures and understand what protection a VPN can and cannot provide.

Shaggy, what about SMS and email? How are they finding out what people have been typing into google searches and Siri? The truth is out there...

That's Snowden & Julian Assange territory (nobody knows) - that's not what CASA are asking for.

CAsA, (you know), fkuc everything.


But actually, CAsA know fkuc all!

Shagpile, no not Exmouth, that is a fair bit further north.

If you look on the maps there is a restricted area just to the east of Geraldton.

I can't remember who the controlling authority is for that restricted area, but it is a monitoring station of some form, lots of satellite dishes etc.

As Ultralights, De_flieger and others have noted, metadata is powerfull.
It can be used to create any almost any scenario desired by those in the shadows.

The situation is not helped when you look at https://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecuri...s/Default.aspx
where on one hand (in the sample datasets) they state that yet on the other hand they want which effectively means the destination IP address, hence they then have a pretty good idea of your web-browsing history.

If CASA wants the metadata then they really should state why they want such easy access to it.
Convenience (to CASA, by not having to get an actual warrant) is not an acceptable reason.

shagpile, no it isn't harold e holt.

it is out from geraldton, down toward dongara.

I kid you not, while it was being built, there on the perth to geraldton highway was a green and white roadside sign pointing off to the west that read
< SECRET BASE
I have a photo of it somewhere.
anyway it monitors all of the australian internet traffic. all of it.

the other night they would have seen me download the pdf's for a home made gun. 3 different designs.

all go ooo ahhhh naughty now...

what they don't know is that I thought all 3 designs were crap. :E

huge sigh of relief from everyone......

it is all bull**** folks. the slimy green world of spying isn't worth the effort.
W8.

Bigglez said:
I totally agree. If they are conducting an investigation, a judge will not hesitate to grant them the warrant within 5 minutes.

By allowing them unrestricted access, you will actually allow them to impose an new cost impost on the Aviator/Aviation traveller.

Unrestricted access means they will create a new 'Internet Activity Monitoring Department" that will employ countless IT specialists on specialist pay...or even worse subcontrators, tasked with the never ending mission of trolling metadata for an event that MIGHT have happened.

I think there are only 3 organisations that needs unrestricted access.
The ATO
ASIO
Centrelink
and the AFP. State Police can request AFP to access for an individual investigation.

This 'Secret Base'...??

Yatharagga: Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) Station - CarnarvonSpace

Otherwise known as MOBLAS5 ..... Formerly 'Yarragadee'......

Beware the 'LASER'....

Cheers:ok:

That's R131. There is also another site operated by the Department of Defence located closer to Geraldton however. There is good perimeter lighting around the site at night also - quite visible. A good cluster of mushrooms too. Maybe he is referring to this one?

http://nautilus.org/publications/boo...tion-kojarena/

Ummm
 

It's a bit of a crap situation .
We are all people ... Human ... With foibles etc ... So rushing to judge anyone for being human eg not sleeping well enough , using social media to "relax " etc is going to end in a crap set of circumstances .
The science ( social and otherwise) , and politics and work place safety are not currently matched up.

A list of who has applied for non-warrant metadata access has been released.
Yep., CASA is there.

List of agencies applying for metadata access without warrant released by Government - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Over 60 agencies apply to snoop into your metadata | Crikey
These are the government agencies that want to see your metadata | Business Insider

Seeing outfits like 'RSPCA (Victoria)', 'Bankstown City Council', 'Australian Postal Corporation', 'National Measurement Institute' (who ????), 'Health Care Complaints Commission (NSW)', etc etc in that list, leads me to conclude that getting warrantless metadata access is going to be very easy for almost anybody.

Could someone please remind me what were the justifications/excuses for all this metadata retention and access ? was it preventing crime ?, terror prevention ?, protecting the children ?

I recently saw a rather balanced report on ABC television about Metadata, interestingly they had a few case studies of how it was being used by various Government and NGO organisations.

Bankstown Council successfully used metadata to prosecute a rubbish dumper who had dumped a whole tipper truck filled with soil right next to a nature reserve...I believe the photo in this article is of the offence in question:

Senate considers greater oversight for companies and councils accessing metadata without warrants - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

As for the RSPCA, I believe that they are hoping to use it in a similar vein to prosecute those who abandon or neglect animals.

This is not to say I don't have concerns about government and other organisations retaining metadata, it's just that there a most definitely legitimate uses.

There is a HUGE difference between the two positions.

Accessing meta data with a warrant, after satisfying a judge that the applicant has reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed and that, in all the circumstances a warrant is justified to allow the proposed intrusion, is very different to having open slather to search for these things because it might assist you to collect evidence in a fishing expedition.

This stuff was all about terrorism at the start and look where it seems to be heading now. If we sit back and apathetically allow each new incursion into our basic rights, we will end up with a national socialist form of government. Your vote is your only weapon but you need to use it NOW.

Kaz

Spot on, kaz. :D

Looks like we will all be voting for Nick's party or the Greens.

Use the power of your vote (and the votes of all those you can influence) to convince your local member he/she will be bereft of support if the proposals are enshrined in legislation.

You don't have to vote for a party you don't want to support; you just let the one you normally support know they risk losing it.

There are still some libertarians left in the LP but they need to know they aren't voices in the wilderness. Rudduck is one and his opinions are always well regarded. I think Sharman Stone is another who has spoken out against the policies of the fanatical Sydney right.

Kaz