Reply to post:

@Mark 85

If only we merely felt like our voices didn't matter; that somehow we were just being unduly pessimistic, that someone, somewhere was hearing us and and paying attention.

But if people who spend their whole adult lives studying law and privacy and IT security can put forward the most well explained, well reasoned and accurate arguments and still be ignored in favour of some cops saying "we needs it" and foreign commercial interests squawking "piracy is theft!" then no reason or truth or plea or observation can dent their resolve to do exactly what they want to do.

Indeed, there's actually no point presenting reasoned arguments because the elements that are most objectionable to us are part of the reason they want this.

So, we're worried that this trove of information detailing our lives to a level that not even our families and partners know about will be available to everyone from councils investigating rubbish dumping to doctors groups investigating unethical relationships to movie studios trawling for copyright infringement and that it will be available without a warrant or even much oversight?

Well that's part of the point of the legislation in the first place. If it wasn't then access to the data would be restricted. You can't argue against restricting access to civil third parties if you really mean for the data to be used to help LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies from protecting us from SERIOUS CRIME. It would be beyond simple to restrict access in this way; you write into the legislation that the data may only be accessed by law enforcement personnel and only in the investigation of criminal matters*.

Other things they either just don't care about or are to arrogant to believe could ever be a problem.

So, we're worried that this retention will create an perpetual, ever-expanding, irresistible target for any and all criminal organisations looking to profit from identity fraud or selling the information on to those who will?

That's nice but terrorists.

What kind of government could possibly put such concerns above the need to prevent acts so infrequent that not even the US can identify one instance where their programs - the widest and most all-invasive spying in history - have materially helped stop such an attack?

To think of the privacy and security of 23 million people above trying to lessen a risk that is - even by the most absurdly pessimistic and selective number wrangling - less deadly than falling out of bed (which is no joke - older people are at serious risk from falls) would just be irresponsible.

Why? Because rare, isolated shocking incidents are far more news friendly than prevalent, everyday issues that are, by the numbers, far more serious. Far easier to get people concerned that their loved ones might be the victim of a terrorist attack, despite the fact that they are some thousand times more likely to kill themselves. But do we find our government championing this cause? No. Pitiful funding and no rules that stop health services siphoning those funds to pay for other things.

It's not important to reform mental health in Australia to try and help prevent two and a half thousand suicides each year (not to mention all the other issues). Indigenous health? Why worry about that - it's just a 'lifestyle choice', right Tony?

But a half a billion dollar boost for 'counter-terrorism' and sweeping new legislation that erodes privacy and security for all Australians to prevent a potential average of, what, 2 - 4 deaths a year? Sign us up.

* - Of course, that means less once they approve the TPP and copyright infringement becomes a criminal case, but that's a little beside the point, which is that they didn't even try to restrict access.