Care needed in fight against terror
There is a fine balance between greater security and diminished freedoms, says Kyron Johnson
AUSTRALIANS face being imposed with encryption laws that will seriously invade their privacy like never before in our history, if discussions by the Federal Government regarding access to encrypted data for the claimed purpose of counter terrorism becomes law.
No other country including the United Kingdom and France — where terrorism is now a constant threat — have encryption laws that infringe upon their citizens’ liberty to the extent being discussed.
No one questions the need for tighter security to protect this country from the evil attacks by terrorists, but it is how laws are implemented that should concern everyone.
The impact of any proposed legislation accessing encrypted data will be forever lasting.
They may not have any immediate effect, but they could in the future be expanded to limit the freedom of citizens in many ways.
The “source code” for encryption is widely available, which means that short of shutting down the internet, there is nothing that can be done to stop individuals, including terrorists, from creating and customising their own encryption software.
The Government needs to explain why such laws would be a proportionate and necessary response to the terrorist threat facing Australia, when they would impose limitations on our civil liberty beyond that of even the UK, US and France who face a greater threat.
Contemporary terrorism is a complex social phenomenon and has had a massive impact on domestic and international law. Since 9/11 more than 140 nations have enacted antiterrorism laws, with Australia leading the charge mainly focused on preventive measures.
At present political discussion focuses on terrorist use of the Information Communications Technology (ICT), particularly encryption.
Terrorists use a multitude of encrypted and unencrypted internet platforms to disseminate their nefarious activities.
Reaching out to every communications device anywhere around the world demonstrates it is a truly international problem that requires co-ordinated international solutions.
The Government now looks to implement new laws compelling organisations to make encrypted usage data available, for intelligence and investigative purposes.
Such laws are problematic. For example, most of these organisations are based in the United States which has constitutional amendment’s protecting rights to privacy, making such laws difficult to enact.
There is also little evidence of terrorists using encryption in an actual attack.
During an attack, the terrorist objective is to get as much media coverage as possible, so they prefer to use traditional communication methods.
Activities leading up to an attack or in radicalising individuals do, however, take place in a veil of secrecy, so encryption tools are used. Terrorist groups such as alQa’ida and ISIL, use their own encryption resources.
I fail to see how any government is going to regulate them.
It’s like telling ISIL they can’t use AK47’s anymore.
In the past ISIL has developed its own social media platform called Kalefahbook and al-Qa’ida released its own encryption tool “Mujahideen Secrets” in 2007.
Government control over encryption is not going to stop terrorists from communicating or storing information, nor will it stop them undertaking attacks. In fact, it may only serve to drive terrorists deeper into the dark web, which, according to the University of California, Berkley, is 500 times larger than our perception of the surface web.
There is more capacity under existing measures to monitor terrorist activity.
The FBI has already indicated encryption laws will send them deeper into darkness.
Considering the above, the concept of governments having ready access to encrypted data really brings the notion of necessity and proportionality into question.
Some will argue that prevention is better than the cure and that argument is valid, however the antidote needs to be proportional and
The greatest tragedy that could overcome a country would be for it to fight a successful war in defence of liberty and to lose its own liberty in the process. ROBERT MENZIES
directly targeted at the terrorist threat, not all Australians. Questions regarding access to personal data must be raised when measuring proportionality and necessity against that threat. Another argument is that, if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about, but that is shallow rhetoric and maybe seen as a disingenuous attempt to use acts of terrorism as a convenient way of introducing laws that infringe on our civil liberties.
Encryption is a big deal, we use it every day, it provides you and I with security in the digital world. We have already seen governments enact laws capable of accessing our communications metadata. Now they want access to our private encrypted data, which is a whole new ball game and something that needs careful consideration.
Once governments have access it creates a super highway that can, at some point, reach out into all areas of our private lives.
Laws dealing with terrorism that defeat civil liberties must in the first instance meet the test of proportionality and necessity.
Good governance and public policy must be developed within a prism of objectivity and a respect for democratic processes and the law.
There are mechanisms within international law to temporarily limit civil liberties in times of conflict. Governments have an obligation to protect.
It is important that governments, in implementing counter-terrorism laws, do so with both domestic needs and international law in mind.
Politicians tell us to live our daily lives as normal, yet their actions are at odds with their rhetoric.
In keeping communities safe, politicians must not undermine our democratic freedoms.
Rather, they must show confidence in our democratic institutions, they must work harder within our local communities and institutions in identifying and establishing appropriate counter-terrorism measures.
They must also work with the international community including the United Nations Security Council, to ensure a balance between counterterrorism laws and civil liberties. The Government’s meeting with the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance in Canada next month only involves intelligence officials, security ministers and attorney’s general.
Failure to include other stakeholders will only serve to diminish our civil liberties further, as the risk of “group think” sets in, only considering options within a security framework that doesn’t take into account the broader context of the problem. Kyron Johnson holds a Master’s Degree in Terrorism and Security Studies from Charles Sturt University NSW (Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security) and is completing a Master’s Degree in International Law, Governance and Public Policy at Macquarie University.