This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/lamb-chop-weight-enforcers-want-warrantless-access-to-australians-metadata

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lamb chop weight enforcers want warrantless access to Australians’ metadata Lamb chop weight enforcers want warrantless access to Australians’ metadata
(35 minutes later)
If you’re in the business of selling lamb chops make sure you’re weighing them properly: the National Measurement Institute wants warrantless access to Australians’ metadata to help them hunt down supermarkets skimping on lamb chop portions. If you are in the business of selling lamb chops, make sure you are weighing them properly: the National Measurement Institute wants warrantless access to Australians’ metadata to help them hunt down supermarkets skimping on portions.
Related: Dozens of agencies want warrantless access to Australians' metadata againRelated: Dozens of agencies want warrantless access to Australians' metadata again
The NMI is one of 61 agencies that has made an application to the attorney general, George Brandis, to be classed as a “criminal law-enforcement agency” in order to gain warrantless access to telecommunications data. The NMI is one of 61 agencies that has applied to the attorney general, George Brandis, to be classed as a “criminal law-enforcement agency” in order to gain warrantless access to telecommunications data.
When the government introduced its mandatory data retention laws in 2015, they were particularly controversial because they would increase the already vast array of personal phone and internet data of Australians that would be accessible to government agencies, and all without a warrant. The government’s mandatory data retention laws, introduced last year, increased the already vast array of personal phone and internet data of Australians that would be accessible to government agencies, and all without a warrant.
Access can be sought by government agencies by filling out a short form and sending them directly to a phone or internet company. Agencies can seek access by filling out a short form and sending it directly to a phone or internet company.
As part of the government’s assurances that there would be sufficient privacy safeguards to access Australians’ metadata, the government shrunk the number of agencies which could access the data to a small number of law enforcement agencies. As part of the government’s assurances that there would be sufficient privacy safeguards, it reduced the number of agencies that could access the data.
But they left it open for agencies to reapply, with the permission of the attorney general. Agencies can only gain access if they are involved in enforcing “serious contraventions” of criminal laws. But agencies could reapply, with the permission of the attorney general, if they were involved in enforcing “serious contraventions” of criminal laws.
Following a request from ZDnet and a separate request from Geordie Guy on Right to Know, a list of 61 agencies which have sought to be declared criminal law enforcement agencies has been published. Following requests from ZDnet and Geordie Guy on Right to Know, a list of 61 agencies which have sought to be declared criminal law enforcement agencies has been published. Among them is the National Measurement Institute.
The National Measurement Institute is just one of the agencies that have sought to be declared a criminal law enforcement agency under the new law.
After initially assuring Guardian Australia the institute would explain why it needed this access, spokeswoman Yen Heng later declined to provide any response and referred questions to the attorney general’s department. A spokeswoman for the NMI, Yen Heng, referred questions about its application to the attorney general’s department.
The agency’s only enforcement activities relate to measuring and packaged goods. Its biggest – and only – successful prosecutions according to the compliance report relate to four instances: The agency’s enforcement activities relate to measuring and packaged goods. It has carried out four successful prosecutions according to its compliance report:
It is not immediately clear why these prosecutions, or any similar ones, would require warrantless access to telecommunications metadata. Brandis said was the purpose of the new data retention laws was to pursue “serious criminal investigations”.
The NMI and other agencies seeking to regain access has raised concerns, because it is a far cry from the “serious criminal investigations” that Brandis said was the express purpose of new data retention laws.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam said: “The only saving grace the government was able to claim when they passed it was that they were narrowing the range of agencies that could access the data.Greens senator Scott Ludlam said: “The only saving grace the government was able to claim when they passed it was that they were narrowing the range of agencies that could access the data.
“On the face of it that was true, and obviously that’s just been blown to pieces.”“On the face of it that was true, and obviously that’s just been blown to pieces.”
The NMI are not the only ones seeking access again. Other agencies that play a role far away from serious crimes have sought to reapply. Other agencies that seek to prosecute crimes at the lower end of the scale have also sought to reapply, including Bankstown council in south-western Sydney.
Bankstown Council is also on the list. A spokesman for the council said it had previously gained successful prosecutions into illegal dumping as a result of telecommunications access. A spokesman for the council said it had gained successful prosecutions into illegal dumping as a result of telecommunications access.
“We only ever had access to call records which assisted us in placing a person at the scene of an illegal dumping offence after they initially denied involvement. One involved the dumping of around 20,000 tonnes of waste at five different sites,” he said.“We only ever had access to call records which assisted us in placing a person at the scene of an illegal dumping offence after they initially denied involvement. One involved the dumping of around 20,000 tonnes of waste at five different sites,” he said.
“As a result, this information has resulted in a number of successful prosecutions relating to illegal dumping.”“As a result, this information has resulted in a number of successful prosecutions relating to illegal dumping.”
RSPCA Victoria is also seeking access from the attorney general. A spokeswoman told Guardian Australia: “Prior to the recent amendments made to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, a critical tool used in animal cruelty investigations by the Inspectorate was telecommunications data. Only the Inspectorate within RSPCA Victoria accessed and used telecommunications data. RSPCA Victoria is also seeking access from the attorney general. A spokeswoman told Guardian Australia that before the changes to the law telecommunications data had been “a critical tool used in animal cruelty investigations” by its inspectorate, which was the only part of the organisation that accessed the data.
Related: Dallas Buyers Club piracy case: judge dismisses bid to access private detailsRelated: Dallas Buyers Club piracy case: judge dismisses bid to access private details
“Due to the importance of telecommunications data in the Inspectorate’s criminal investigations, RSPCA Victoria made a submission to the attorney general’s department seeking to regain access to telecommunications data.”“Due to the importance of telecommunications data in the Inspectorate’s criminal investigations, RSPCA Victoria made a submission to the attorney general’s department seeking to regain access to telecommunications data.”
There is some confusion about the precise nature of the applications made by the 61 agencies on the list and their status. It appears that some of the agencies may have sought and already been declined access under the act. Australia Post sought, and was denied, access by the attorney general’s department. There is some confusion about the precise nature of the applications made by the 61 agencies on the list and their status. It appears that some of the agencies, including Australia Post, may have been declined access.
A spokesman said the organisation requested to be a criminal law enforcement agency “to directly request access to telecommunications data to assist investigations into the use of mobile phones stolen from our network or retail outlets”.A spokesman said the organisation requested to be a criminal law enforcement agency “to directly request access to telecommunications data to assist investigations into the use of mobile phones stolen from our network or retail outlets”.
He continued: “Australia Post did not receive access rights in this instance and has no current plans to reapply.” But “Australia Post did not receive access rights in this instance and has no current plans to reapply.”
A spokesman for the attorney general’s department did not directly answer Guardian Australia’s questions, instead responding with a statement: “The government’s data retention legislation reduced access to telecommunications data under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 from those agencies performing enforcement and related functions down to 21 specified core criminal law enforcement and security agencies.”A spokesman for the attorney general’s department did not directly answer Guardian Australia’s questions, instead responding with a statement: “The government’s data retention legislation reduced access to telecommunications data under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 from those agencies performing enforcement and related functions down to 21 specified core criminal law enforcement and security agencies.”
He listed the 21 agencies specified in the act.He listed the 21 agencies specified in the act.
“The attorney general has not temporarily declared any additional enforcement agencies,” he said.“The attorney general has not temporarily declared any additional enforcement agencies,” he said.