Surveillance
Both Australia and New Zealand have taken steps toward greater Internet security, passing laws to give government agencies greater authority to investigate illegal activities
online.
Australia’s Internet surveillance regime is primarily based on two laws. The first is the
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. This act, amended in June
2006, prohibits intercepting telecommunications or accessing, without first notifying
both the sender and the receiver, stored telecommunications by any person or entity,
except in cases such as the installation or maintenance of telecommunications equipment. 74 It also establishes two warrant systems, controlled by the attorney general, by
which law enforcement may gain access to these communications: ‘‘telecommunications service warrants’’ (for real-time interception) and ‘‘stored communications
warrants’’ (for access to stored communications without a requirement to notify the
communicants). 75
The second relevant law is the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, which significantly
increases the authority of law enforcement to install surveillance devices such as
keystroke recorders under newly created ‘‘surveillance device warrants.’’ 76 Electronic
Frontiers Australia has expressed worry that these warrants will be used by law enforcement to avoid applying for a telecommunications service warrant, essentially allowing
them to intercept communications where a telecommunications service warrant would
not have been authorized. 77
Further, in 2003, the Australian Internet Industry Association (IIA) attempted to
establish a code of practice requiring ISP signatories to retain user information for six
or twelve months and provide it to law enforcement upon official request. Specifically,
personal data—such as name, address, and credit card details—were to be retained by
ISPs for six months after a customer ends service with that ISP or twelve months after
the record is created, whichever is longer. Operational data, such as proxy logs and
e-mail information, were to be kept for six months after creation of the data. 78 Law
enforcement could request this information using the certificate system set up in the
Telecommunications Act 1997, 79 which allows private information to be disclosed if
‘‘an authorized officer of a criminal law-enforcement agency has certified that the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law.’’ 80
In New Zealand, the most relevant piece of legislation to Internet security is Supplemental Order Paper 85 to the Crimes Amendment Bill No. 6, passed in 2003. The
act essentially makes it illegal to hack or intercept electronic communications, but
exempts the police, the Security Intelligence Service, and the Government Communications Security Bureau acting under interception warrants as described by the Crimes
Act 1961. As noted on the Web site of the Green Party, however, these warrants could
be ‘‘quite broad in their application and cover a class of people.’’ 81
400
Australia and New Zealand Overview
Both Australia and New Zealand have taken steps toward greater Internet security, passing laws to give government agencies greater authority to investigate illegal activities
online.
Australia’s Internet surveillance regime is primarily based on two laws. The first is the
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. This act, amended in June
2006, prohibits intercepting telecommunications or accessing, without first notifying
both the sender and the receiver, stored telecommunications by any person or entity,
except in cases such as the installation or maintenance of telecommunications equipment. 74 It also establishes two warrant systems, controlled by the attorney general, by
which law enforcement may gain access to these communications: ‘‘telecommunications service warrants’’ (for real-time interception) and ‘‘stored communications
warrants’’ (for access to stored communications without a requirement to notify the
communicants). 75
The second relevant law is the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, which significantly
increases the authority of law enforcement to install surveillance devices such as
keystroke recorders under newly created ‘‘surveillance device warrants.’’ 76 Electronic
Frontiers Australia has expressed worry that these warrants will be used by law enforcement to avoid applying for a telecommunications service warrant, essentially allowing
them to intercept communications where a telecommunications service warrant would
not have been authorized. 77
Further, in 2003, the Australian Internet Industry Association (IIA) attempted to
establish a code of practice requiring ISP signatories to retain user information for six
or twelve months and provide it to law enforcement upon official request. Specifically,
personal data—such as name, address, and credit card details—were to be retained by
ISPs for six months after a customer ends service with that ISP or twelve months after
the record is created, whichever is longer. Operational data, such as proxy logs and
e-mail information, were to be kept for six months after creation of the data. 78 Law
enforcement could request this information using the certificate system set up in the
Telecommunications Act 1997, 79 which allows private information to be disclosed if
‘‘an authorized officer of a criminal law-enforcement agency has certified that the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law.’’ 80
In New Zealand, the most relevant piece of legislation to Internet security is Supplemental Order Paper 85 to the Crimes Amendment Bill No. 6, passed in 2003. The
act essentially makes it illegal to hack or intercept electronic communications, but
exempts the police, the Security Intelligence Service, and the Government Communications Security Bureau acting under interception warrants as described by the Crimes
Act 1961. As noted on the Web site of the Green Party, however, these warrants could
be ‘‘quite broad in their application and cover a class of people.’’ 81
400
Australia and New Zealand Overview