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/australia-news/2015/mar/27/two-thirds-of-australians-think-security-justifies-data-retention-poll-shows

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Two-thirds of Australians think security justifies data retention, poll shows Two-thirds of Australians think security justifies data retention, poll shows
(35 minutes later)
Nearly two-thirds of Australians think the mandatory retention of data is justified in order to combat terrorism, according to a new poll by thinktank the Lowy Institute, published after new legislation passed the Senate on Thursday night.Nearly two-thirds of Australians think the mandatory retention of data is justified in order to combat terrorism, according to a new poll by thinktank the Lowy Institute, published after new legislation passed the Senate on Thursday night.
The telephone survey of 1,200 people found 63% thought “legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content” was justified for national security reasons, according to the wording of the poll.The telephone survey of 1,200 people found 63% thought “legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content” was justified for national security reasons, according to the wording of the poll.
A further 33% thought the legislation “goes too far in violating citizens’ privacy and is therefore not justified”.A further 33% thought the legislation “goes too far in violating citizens’ privacy and is therefore not justified”.
The Lowy Institute’s executive director, Michael Fullilove, said: “Australians appear to accept some infringements on their privacy in the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting national security.”The Lowy Institute’s executive director, Michael Fullilove, said: “Australians appear to accept some infringements on their privacy in the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting national security.”
People aged between 18 and 29 were more mixed on the legislation, with 47% thinking it was justified and 50% thinking it went too far. People aged between 18 and 29 were more mixed on the legislation, with 50% thinking it was justified and 47% thinking it went too far.
Respondents were asked: “As part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security, the Australian government is introducing legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content.Respondents were asked: “As part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security, the Australian government is introducing legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content.
“Do you personally think this is justified as part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security, or do you think this goes too far in violating citizens’ privacy and is therefore not justified?”“Do you personally think this is justified as part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security, or do you think this goes too far in violating citizens’ privacy and is therefore not justified?”
The poll has a margin of error of 2.8%, and was conducted between 20 February and 8 March.The poll has a margin of error of 2.8%, and was conducted between 20 February and 8 March.
Labor and the Coalition banded together to pass the legislation on Thursday night. The Greens and a majority of crossbenchers voted against it.Labor and the Coalition banded together to pass the legislation on Thursday night. The Greens and a majority of crossbenchers voted against it.
Questions still remain over how much the policy will cost, and whether data will be stored onshore or overseas.Questions still remain over how much the policy will cost, and whether data will be stored onshore or overseas.
The attorney general, George Brandis, told ABC radio on Friday that how much money the federal government will put into the scheme is yet to be determined.The attorney general, George Brandis, told ABC radio on Friday that how much money the federal government will put into the scheme is yet to be determined.
“There was a report done by PricewaterhouseCoopers that assessed what the set-up cost of this system was likely to be, and it assessed what the range was to be, the likely range was between $188m and $319m. So, the midpoint of that is around about $250m, to which the government has said that we will make a substantial contribution,” Brandis said.“There was a report done by PricewaterhouseCoopers that assessed what the set-up cost of this system was likely to be, and it assessed what the range was to be, the likely range was between $188m and $319m. So, the midpoint of that is around about $250m, to which the government has said that we will make a substantial contribution,” Brandis said.
Opponents have said the cost of the policy will be passed on to consumers.Opponents have said the cost of the policy will be passed on to consumers.
Brandis said: “To put it in context, this is a $43bn-a-year industry. So, whatever cost there may be across the entire industry will be negligible.”Brandis said: “To put it in context, this is a $43bn-a-year industry. So, whatever cost there may be across the entire industry will be negligible.”