The Australian Privacy Foundation challenges Parties and candidates participating in the 2007 Federal Election to make clear their positions on the following critical matters.
A vast array of privacy-hostile measures has been enacted, on the pretext that they are somehow necessary to protect public security. Changes are needed, so that all accesses by all agencies, including all national security and law enforcement agencies, require prior justification and a judicial warrant.
Under the guise of anti-money-laundering provisions, so-called AML-CTF legislation is about to come into effect that substantially widens and deepens requirements of business enterprises to 'Know Your Customer'. The enlistment of companies as State informers is not consistent with a free and open society, but rather with East Germany under the Stasi.
The Biometrics industry is immature, is plagued by high error rates and misinformation, and is creating profound risks for the future of personal information security. A variety of grossly intrusive projects are in train. They need to be halted, pending public information and consultation processes, followed by enactment of strong and enforceable laws regulating the use of all such technologies by all agencies and corporations.
Many major government initiatives have substantial negative impacts on privacy and other interests. Yet agencies avoid involving the public in their conception, design and implementation. Authoritative documents need to be negotiated that set minimum standards, and that guide the more enlightened agencies in the conduct of effective consultation processes.
Many countries have even less protection for personal data than Australia. There is supposed to be a prohibition against the export of personal data to such countries, yet corporations and government agencies are releasing data to places like India and the USA. The Government and the Privacy Commissioner must fulfil their responsibility to get those data flows under control.
Successive Privacy Commissioners have been appointed in secret by the Attorney-General, and have been captured by the bureaucracy and increasingly by industry associations. The position must be openly advertised, appointment criteria must be transparent, the selection committee must be representative of the public rather than of the government agencies the appointee is meant to regulate, and the appointee must be attuned to the interests of the public rather than those of government and business.
The Do Not Call Register is a worthwhile initiative, but its effect has been seriously weakened by government compliance with lobbying by industry and by political parties. These weaknesses must be overcome.
The 'Access Card' project has been shown up as an attempt to impose a national identification scheme and an ill-conceived waste of taxpayers' money. The project must be abandoned, and a new one commenced that is limited to an upgrade of the Medicare card. Smartcards can be used to protect privacy, as well as to assist agencies' operations and to support their social control objectives.