Interception And Access Act 1979

Digital technology has been rapidly developing through the late 20th century and as a result has now become accessible globally, allowing for new methods of socialisation and commerce. Telecommunication is a product of these advancements and with it come the legal issues which arise from how it can be a medium for criminals to utilise as a medium for their illegal agendas, varying from activities such as hacking and terrorism. It is often difficult for domestic law enforcement and national security agencies to persecute criminals as there are multiple forms of disguising identity either through disposable technology or masking VPNs (Virtual Private Networks). The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) was created for the …show more content…
This questions whether the law reforms of metadata, and the legal implications it carries as either intended effects or externalities, will be beneficial to society.
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) was originally created to combat terrorism; however, over the years as technology advanced there have been various amendments in order to adapt it has seen more use in law enforcement to help solve criminal cases. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data …show more content…
The common law right of a presumption of innocence is argued to be threatened by the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015 as the bill keeps track of the metadata of all citizens, whether or not they are the suspects of an investigation. Senator David Leyonjhelm has criticized the law reforms, stating “Governments are supposed to serve the people, not treat them as presumptive criminals”.3 The lack of a legal definition which is cohesive and unambiguous, as the current definition by law is ever changing due to the advancements of technology, has also questioned the procedural fairness of the reform, specifically the element of transparency. Consequentially, this has raised notions of whether the sacrifice of privacy, as the government and law enforcement have easy access to the metadata, is worth it for the sake of surveillance of a few suspected individuals in society. Ex- National Security Legislation monitor Bret Walker has endorsed the reforms with the statement “Surveillance is by far the most useful preventative means we have in dealing in advance with terrorist plots”.4 If the government is treating each individual in a society with the same surveillance as terrorists would be, the legal implications of this may have an effect where future reforms of law may adhere to the same amount of degradation of