[Peetwo]

Can someone please explain why a half assed outfit CASA feel, or even believe there is a need for this level of data mining - invasion of privacy comes to mind.  WTH has anyone’s private life to with an air safety REGULATOR.  ASIO, Police, national security agencies – fine; no problem.   But most in aviation have already been 'vetted' - ASIC ring any bells?

It’s a disgusting request from a despicable department which consistently ignores the large issues and thrives on making much of the minutiae of individual lives.  Duck ‘em; let ‘em get a warrant; or, better yet, let the agencies qualified to investigate do the job:  properly.  Under the national rules, not Joe Rules.  

Steve Easton – HERE - courtesy of:-

Follow up to the above today..

Sixty-one agencies want access to Aussie metadata

By Allie Coyne on Jan 18, 2016 1:07PM


FOI reveals list of those vying for citizen info.

The federal government has revealed the names of 57 agencies that are pushing to access the data collected on Australian citizens through the government's data retention regime.

A total of 61 agencies have requested access to the telecommunications non-content data, a freedom of information request revealed.

Four agency names were redacted, as it would be "contrary to the public interest" to release them, according to the Attorney-General's Department.

The 61 agencies have asked to be named as "criminal enforcement agencies" under the TIA Act, a designation which is required to be able to access the retained data.

The agencies in question include federal bodies like the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Clean Energy Regulator, the Tax Office, the National Measurement Institute, the Australian Financial Security Authority and the departments of Agriculture, Defence, Environment, Health, Human Services, Social Services and Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The list also includes state bodies such as the Bankstown City Council, Racing NSW and Racing Queensland, Greyhound Racing Victoria, the Victorian arm of the RSPCA, the Victorian Taxi Services Commission, and numerous state government departments.
Australia's data retention laws went live in October.

The scheme requires telecommunications providers to store certain customer data like personal details, billing information, IP addresses, location and traffic data, and upload and download volumes, among other things.

Approved government agencies can access the historical data without a warrant.

At launch, 21 government agencies were allowed to access the data. That list included the AFP, state police forces and anti-corruption commissions, and Border Force, as well as regulators like the Crime Commissions, the ACLEI and the ACCC.

The government had cut down on the amount of agencies able to ask telcos for data in the lead up to the introduction of the scheme, which had previously numbered around 80.
Previously the list had included the likes of local councils, environmental bodies and the RSPCA, which were removed after privacy and civil rights advocates questioned why such bodies needed access to the data.

Corporate regulator ASIC was one of those taken off the list and applied to be put back on.

The Attorney-General of the day has the power to allow an agency onto the list.


Read more: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/Article.aspx?id=413770#ixzz3xYymwuky

 
&.. an update to the original ZDNet article..

61 agencies after warrantless access to Australian telecommunications metadata

Australia Post, the RSPCA of Victoria, and the Victorian Taxi Services Commission are among 61 agencies in Australia seeking warrantless access to metadata stored by telcos.


By Chris Duckett | January 18, 2016 -- 01:57 GMT (12:57 AEDT) |

The names of 57 agencies that are seeking to gain access to telecommunications metadata stored on Australian residents without a warrant have been released under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

The names of four agencies have been redacted, with the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) previously saying that disclosing the names of these agencies would be contrary to the public interest.

The FOI request originally asked for correspondence from organisations seeking to gain access to stored telecommunications metadata. The department denied this request on practical grounds, stating that 2,661 pages spread across 288 documents were related to such a request, and that 45 third parties needed to be consulted before the information could be released.

Eventually, the request was narrowed down to merely a list of agencies looking to be declared as an enforcement agency as defined under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

"Agencies objected to disclosure on the basis that it would compromise the trust they place in the Commonwealth," AGD said last week. "During consultation, these four agencies clearly indicated that disclosure of this information would damage the relationship between the department and the relevant agencies, and could affect any future cooperation with the department."

The full list of agencies is as follows:

1. Australian Financial Security Authority
   
2. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
   
3. Australian Postal Corporation
   
4. Australian Taxation Office
   
5. Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
   
6. Civil Aviation Safety Authority
   
7. Clean Energy Regulator
   
8. Department of Agriculture
   
9. Department of Defence
   
10. Department of the Environment
    
11. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
    
12. Department of Health
    
13. Department of Human Services
    
14. Department of Social Services
    
15. Fair Work Building and Construction
    
16. National Measurement Institute
    
17. ACT Revenue Office
    
18. Access Canberra (Department of Treasury and Economic Development)
    
19. Bankstown City Council
    
20. Consumer Affairs - Victoria
    
21. Consumer, Building and Occupational Services - Tasmania
    
22. Consumer and Business Services - SA
    
23. [redacted]
    
24. [redacted]
    
25. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Queensland
    
26. Department of Commerce - WA
    
27. Department of Corrective Services - WA
    
28. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection - Queensland
    
29. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources - Victoria
    
30. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning - Victoria
    
31. Department of Environment Regulation - WA
    
32. Department of Fisheries - WA
    
33. Department of Justice and Regulation (Consumer Affairs) - Victoria
    
34. Department of Justice and Regulation (Sheriff of Victoria)
    
35. Department of Mines and Petroleum - WA
    
36. [redacted]
    
37. Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) - NSW
    
38. Environment Protection Authority - SA
    
39. Greyhound Racing Victoria
    
40. Harness Racing New South Wales
    
41. Health Care Complaints Commission - NSW
    
42. Legal Services Board - Victoria
    
43. NSW Environment Protection Authority
    
44. NSW Fair Trading
    
45. Office of Environment and Heritage - NSW
    
46. Office of Fair Trading - Queensland
    
47. Office of State Revenue - NSW
    
48. Office of State Revenue - Queensland
    
49. Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner - Vic
    
50. Primary Industries and Regions South Australia
    
51. Queensland Building and Construction Commission
    
52. Racing and Wagering Western Australia
    
53. Racing NSW
    
54. Racing Queensland
    
55. Roads and Maritime Service NSW
    
56. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) - Victoria
    
57. State Revenue Office - Victoria
    
58. Taxi Services Commission - Victoria
    
59. [redacted]
    
60. Revenue SA
    
61. Victorian WorkSafe Authority
    

The Australian data-retention laws allow the nation's approved law-enforcement agencies to warrantlessly access two years' worth of customers' call records, location information, IP addresses, billing information, and other data stored by telcos.
 
Also contained within the FOI documents was a list of agencies that previously had access to telecommunications data. The list was sorted alphabetically along with redactions in place.

1. Access Canberra (Department of Treasury and Economic Development)
   
2. ACT Revenue Office
   
3. Australian Financial Security Authority
   
4. [redacted]
   
5. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
   
6. Australian Postal Corporation
   
7. Australian Taxation Office
   
8. Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
   
9. Bankstown City Council
   
10. [redacted]
    
11. [redacted]
    
12. [redacted]
    
13. Civil Aviation Safety Authority
    
14. Clean Energy Regulator
    
15. [redacted]
    
16. [redacted]
    
17. Consumer and Business Services - SA
    
18. Consumer, Building and Occupational Services
    
19. [redacted]
    
20. [redacted]
    
21. Department of Agriculture
    
22. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Queensland)
    
23. Department of Commerce - WA
    
24. Department of Corrective Services - WA
    
25. Department of Defence
    
26. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (Fisheries) - Victoria
    
27. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection - Queensland
    
28. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning - Victoria
    
29. Department of Fisheries - WA
    
30. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
    
31. Department of Health
    
32. Department of Human Services
    
33. Department of Mines and Petroleum - WA
    
34. [redacted]
    
35. Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) - NSW
    
36. Department of Social Services
    
37. Department of the Environment
    
38. [redacted]
    
39. [redacted]
    
40. [redacted]
    
41. Environment Protection Authority - SA
    
42. Fair Work Building and Construction
    
43. Greyhound Racing Victoria
    
44. Harness Racing New South Wales
    
45. [redacted]
    
46. Health Care Complaints Commission - NSW
    
47. Legal Services Board - Victoria
    
48. [redacted]
    
49. National Measurement Institute
    
50. NSW Environment Protection Authority
    
51. NSW Fair Trading
    
52. [redacted]
    
53. Office of Environment and Heritage - NSW
    
54. Office of Fair Trading - Queensland
    
55. [redacted]
    
56. Office of State Revenue - NSW
    
57. Office of State Revenue - Queensland
    
58. Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner - Vic
    
59. [redacted]
    
60. [redacted]
    
61. Primary Industries and Regions South Australia
    
62. Queensland Building and Construction Commission
    
63. Racing and Wagering Western Australia
    
64. Racing NSW
    
65. Racing Queensland
    
66. Roads and Maritime Service NSW
    
67. [redacted]
    
68. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) - Victoria
    
69. [redacted]
    
70. [redacted]
    
71. State Revenue Office - Victoria
    
72. [redacted]
    
73. [redacted]
    
74. Taxi Services Commission - Victoria
    
75. [redacted]
    
76. [redacted]
    
77. [redacted]
    
78. Victorian WorkSafe Authority
    
79. [redacted]
    

[/url]
Of those listed, it appears that South Australia's Consumer and Business Services is the only agency to not reapply for access.

During 2015, [url=http://www.zdnet.com/article/government-obtained-4000-telco-interception-warrants-for-fy15/]3,926 telecommunications interception warrants were issued, a 2 percent fall from the year prior, and 365,728 authorisations for the disclosure of historical telecommunications data were made by agencies.

Of the agencies and departments given access to existing information or documents to enforce a criminal law over the 12-month period, and not included on either list released by AGD, or known to be an enforcement agency already, are: the Australian Fisheries Management Authority; the Department of the Environment; SA Consumer and Business Services; Corrective Services NSW; the WA Department of Environmental Regulation; Corrections Victoria; RSPCA Queensland; RSPCA Tasmania; The Hills Shire Council; the Vic Transport Accident Commission; and Workcover NSW.

A similar request was made by privacy advocate Geordie Guy, for which the department requested a fee of $424 to complete the request. A fee that Guy was able to raise through crowdfunding.

On appeal from ZDNet on its separate request, the department reduced the charges by 75 percent and said the release of such documents was in the public interest as it would provide background on how the metadata legislation is operating.

So much for trust & 'just culture', couple the above with this post - Public Servant Whistle-blowers & the piddling PIDs? and you soon get the real picture about what's going on at Fort Fumble -


MTF...P2