Australian phones 24-times more likely to be bugged than an American phone |
|
Sunday, 21 May 2006 |
NSWCCL media release: 4/2006
|
| |
| |
Phone tapping by government agencies in Australia (including the police) remains at unacceptably high levels. Australia issues 24 times more warrants than the US per capita. Alarmingly, non-judges issue 93% of all Australian warrants, whereas in the US non-judges are not allowed to issue warrants at all.
In the twelve months 2004/2005 there were 2883 warrants issued in Australia. In the twelve months of 2005, US courts issued 1774 warrants. In raw figures alone, Australia issued 63% more warrants than the US. Adjusting for population, Australia intercepts telephone communications 24 times more per capita than the United States.
The overuse of telecommunications surveillance in Australia is a massive invasion of privacy. There is no reason why Australians need to be 24 times more likely to have the government listening in to their telephone conversations than Americans. The whole system needs to be overhauled.
While numbers are down from last year’s record highs, every Australian should be concerned. Recent amendments to the law in March 2006 granted more power to government agencies to tap the private conversations of all Australians.
In a trend that should alarm all Australians, non-judges are now issuing almost all telecommunications interception warrants. The problem with this is that non-judges are not sworn to protect our civil liberties. They work on government contract and might not have their contracts renewed if they don’t please the government.
In Australia it is illegal to intercept telecommunications without a warrant. Unlike the US, warrants can be issued in Australia by people other than judges. Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) who have been lawyers for more than five years can be nominated (by the government) to issue warrants. In the reporting year 2004/2005, the vast majority of warrants (93%) were not issued by judges, but by members of the AAT. Alarmingly, this is up from 76% last year.
AAT members do not have tenure, are appointed by the government and work on contract. This means that AAT members are more likely to do the government’s bidding than a judge, which explains why most warrants are issued by non-judges. Real judges simply would not issue so many warrants.
For more information contact:
Cameron Murphy, NSWCCL President, 0411 769 769.
sources:
* AG’s Department, Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979: Report for the year ending 30 June 2005 (May 2006), http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(C99C9C662AE008709B6A1B06BCF8E5CF)~Telecom.pdf/$file/Telecom.pdf.
* Administrative Office of the US Courts, 2005 Wiretap Report, Table 7 http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap05/contents.html.
|
|
|
|
