Australian Officials Pushing For Data Retention Had No Idea What A VPN Is

from the government-follies dept

If you haven’t yet, you really should watch the video we pointed to recently of Australian Attorney General George Brandis trying to explain his internet data retention plan when it’s clear he has no idea how the internet works. It’s the one where he’s asked if it will track the web pages you visit, and Brandis vehemently insists that it will not, but that it will track the web addresses you visit. Some people have said that perhaps he meant it won’t record the actual content on the pages, but just the URL (which might matter if it’s dynamic pages), but later in the conversation, he also implies (almost clearly incorrectly) that he means it will just track the top level domains, not the full URLs. Here’s a reminder snippet:

Brandis: Well, what we’ll be able… what the security agencies want to know… to be retained… is the… is the electronic address of the website that the web user is visiting.

Host: So it does tell you the website.

Brandis: Well… well… it tells you the address of the website.

Host: That’s the website, isn’t it? It tells you what website you’ve been to.

Brandis: Well, when… when you visit a website you… you know, people browse from one thing to the next and… and… that browsing history won’t be retained or… or… or… there won’t be any capacity to access that.

Host: Excuse my confusion here, but if you are retaining the web address, you are retaining the website, aren’t you?

Brandis: Well… the… every website has an electronic address, right?

Host: And that’s recorded.

Brandis: And… um… whether there’s a connection… when a connection is made between one computer terminal and a web address, that fact and the time of the connection, and the duration of the connection, is what we mean by metadata, in that context.

Host: But… that is… telling you… where… I’ve been on the web.

Brandis: Well, it… it… it… it… it… it… it records what web… what at… what electronic web address has been accessed.

Host: I don’t see the difference between that and what website I’ve visited.

Brandis: Well, when you go to a website, commonly, you will go from one web page to another, from one link to another to another, within that website. That’s not what we’re interested in.

Host: Okay. So the overarching… if I go to… SkyNews website, it’ll tell that, but not necessarily the links within that that I go to?

Brandis: Yes.

While it’s a bit of a third hand story, Reason recently did an interview with Australian Senator David Leyonhjelm (who is against data retention, and describes himself as libertarian). Towards the end of the interview, he discusses data retention and tells a very troubling story about how those pushing for data retention had no idea what a VPN is. The story involves a much more knowledgeable government official — which Gizmodo Australia suspects is Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull — demonstrating a VPN and leaving them all dumbfounded:

The other one that’s causing a fair bit of grief is a metadata retention plan, the equivalent of what your NSA does. We don’t have metadata retention at the moment and the agencies have been saying, “Oh, well we should have it. You can’t use it if you haven’t got it,” sort of thing. But I spoke to one of the ministers last week about this because he does know what “metadata” means?he knows quite a lot about the Internet and how it works?He said to me people who are asking for this data, people who are thinking this is a good idea, actually have no idea what they’re asking for. They don’t know what they’re going to do with it. They don’t know what the implications of requiring it are. They haven’t really thought this through.

He gave them a demonstration on a VPN [virtual private network] and said, “By my IP address, tell me what you can find out about me now.” And they had no idea there was such a thing as a VPN. It indicates to me that these people are not well-informed enough to make these kinds of decisions. As it stands, it may be that the government may only require the Internet companies to store the IP address of the originating Internet use, so they’ll know what computer you’re from and what IP you’re working from, which is not a lot different from keeping a record of the phone you’re calling from. So if that’s the case, it’s probably not going to pose too much alarm. He’s a minister and he knows what he’s talking about. But he’s surrounded by people who don’t know what they’re talking about who think that they need something more. We don’t know yet where this will end up. It does have the potential to be very dangerous.

Now, the story does not make it entirely clear about who he’s talking about. It could be read to be Brandis or his staff that didn’t know about VPNs. Or, much more troubling, it could be read to be the intelligence community — though I find that hard to believe. Either way, however, it does suggest a sort of blind adherence to the “collect it all” philosophy of intelligence gathering, without any real understanding of the issues or consequences.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Australian Officials Pushing For Data Retention Had No Idea What A VPN Is”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
william (profile) says:

That first transcript is a deja vu on when I was working as support for a TV top internet device, where the average customer age is 55+

Ahhh… memories of asking a customer if their network cable is plugged in and getting an answer of “huh?”. Additional explanation of asking them if they “see a line, coming out of the back of the box, that connects to the wall” and getting an answer of “what’s a line?” Eventually after 20mins, the old gentleman says he’ll wait till his son is back then call again.

God I have such disdain for humanity after that job…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Hey whippersnapper I’m over 55 and have been working in software and hardware development since 1977. I know many older than I am, male and female, who are still in the business and at the sharp end of developing new products and systems. I’ll admit sometimes it’s fun to play dumb with some young tech installer or support person, it’s truly amazing how little some of them know.

william (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I don’t disagree that knowledgeable people with the intention are really up to date on tech.

However, they are the minority, far and few between. People who gets set top internet device are really on the less knowledgeable end of the spectrum. I personally think that the product is a good concept (in the early 2000’s) and it does help some of the old folks who doesn’t use PC to get on the internet and do emailing and surfing etc. However, when it breaks, these types of users are really not in position to self-trouble shoot.

PS. I don’t really believe that Texas gentleman who threatened to call the police on me because I can’t stop “people in the IRC channel bad mouthing President Bush” are pulling my strings… wait a sec…

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“it does help some of the old folks who doesn’t use PC to get on the internet and do emailing and surfing etc.”

My problem is the use of the term “old folks”. I’ve not noticed a strong correlation between age and competence on the computer. Most people aren’t competent regardless of age. Your statement would be much better if you omitted the word “old”.

Anonymous Coward says:

what ie really worrying is that Brandis, who is pushing the hardest for this, is in the position to push for this data retention and he hasn’t got a fucking clue! how the hell can someone who is so incompetent and illiterate over these issues have the power and authority to make the law? he should be thrown back to law school rather than have the authority to decide that all his fellow Australians need to be spied on, constantly! it’s exactly the same in other countries. the desire to have the ability to screw the public into the ground has come from the USA, as usual, because of the paranoia that has been developed since 9/11. everyone agrees that it was the most horrendous act that could have happened but to now start doing the terrorists job for them, by instilling so much fear of what will happen if the people dont surrender every bit of their freedom and privacy, those in charge who are spreading their paranoia seem to be reveling in what they are forcing others to do, just to feed their own insecurity. this is obviously being spread to the ‘5 Eyes’ and the worrying thing about it is that they are falling for the same paranoia too. no one wants to be held under the hammer of terrorism but equally, no one wants their own government and security forces to be acting worse than the terrorists and making the citizens feel as if they are already under the terrorist hammer!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Fear is a powerful thing

I recently had a discussion with my brother in law, whom I respect very much, about some of these subjects covered on techdirt. About the misuse of power and the so called “security” we all need. He was so convinced that we needed this security no matter the consequences.
He asked me this question: “What if a terrorist bombed a building and your family got killed?” and I asked him “I hope that I would remain sane enough to still feel the same as I do now, because I am sure you wouldn’t want me to go kill innocent people, torture them and destroy our society that you love, for your sake, if it happened to you. That is basically what we are doing now”
He agreed that he wouldn’t want that… and then he said “but still we need this”.
My point is that there is no reason in fear. Logic is often left in the dust when fear is involved, it doesn’t matter to these people that they don’t know enough or that the consequences of their decisions could be catastrophic because fear has a tight grip.

tracyanne (profile) says:

Re: Fear is a powerful thing

Perhaps a better question might be. “What if the police raided your family home on the suspicion that you or your wife or someone staying in your family home was a terrorist, and your family got killed, because the police thought someone who was holding a mobile phone had a gun… and later it turned out their raid was based on misinformation” because that is the sort of society we are currently creating, by passing these security at all costs laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

First they collected

First the collected metadata to fight terrorists, and I did not speak out for I am not a terrorist.

Then they collected more to identify domestic terrorists, and I did not speak out for I am not a domestic terrorist.

Then they built a huge data center and collected more to identify whistle blowers, and I did not speak out for I am not a whistle blower.

Then they collected everything about everyone, and no one dares speak out for fear they will publicaly expose the most intimate details of your life.

RexAlan says:

Australian Officials Pushing For Data Retention

I really agree with “Anonymous Coward’s” point of view. My uncle fought and died defending the right to go about ones business without being spied upon at every opportunity bye those who claim to represent us in government.

Privacy is not about hiding criminal behavior although unfortunately it sometimes does. Even still I am totally opposed to data retention on everybody.

If these laws go through it will be like living in an open prison.

Anonymous Coward says:

Or, much more troubling, it could be read to be the intelligence community — though I find that hard to believe.

It could be the senior management of the intelligence community, which is believable even if you think that the actual analysts are well informed and technologically savvy. Most large organizations have at least a few senior people who could not explain the technical details of their subordinates’ jobs even to save their own. If he showed it to that kind of person, it wouldn’t matter what their subordinates do for a living.

Matt says:

Its not Signals Intelligence...

Its the AGs office. Aust Signals Intelligence is among the best in the world and they know what they can do with it.

Irony is under the AG’s office are people that do know, but they arent being asked the question. The AG is asking the media company lobbyists that got him elected for his talking points.

Only problem is he doesnt understand them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Its not Signals Intelligence...

Australian AGs (state and federal) seem to be chosen purely on the basis of being the most socially-conservative, nannyish, reactionary, and ill-informed lawyer on the government benches.

OTOH, not asking the experts until after determining and announcing policy is pretty normal for ministers in general. The problem isn’t so much that they don’t understand what they’re told, but that they don’t ask until it is too late.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...