National security

Another outstanding fallacy presented in extract two is the ‘appeals to force fallacy’ (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009). The attorney generals department appeal to the reader by describing two exclusive options, either to face the ramifications of terrorism, threats to security and espionage, or to accept the second option, which consists of introducing laws such as telecommunication interception, which in turn not only monetarily funds, but also expands the powers the ASIO already currently hold (Head, M, 2012).This automatically implies that harm will come to the reader if s/he does not accept the conclusion. Furthermore they seek to instil fear In this case they make the implication that Australians civil liberties are at stake, however in this process there is also false declarations of “significant terror plots have been foiled on our soil”(General-Attorneys Department, 2012), when in fact there hasn’t been any substantial evidence in relation to having any imminent threat on ‘national security’ (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009), e. g. (Mohammed Haneef), who was falsely accused of terror attacks and as a consequence of the “terrorism act” was stripped of his visa (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009).

Thus not only conveying the amount of power police have due to the “terrorism act” but also conveying that there are already substantial laws in tact, which adequately respond to such situations. Nor is there indication that the proposed reform is the only or best way to help prevent future attacks/plots.An assertion is made in extract 2 has been made which carries red herring and inconsistencies (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009), “While advances in technology and communications have resulted unquestionable benefits… they have also introduced significant vulnerabilities, including the ability to disrupt, destroy or alter critical infrastructure and the Information held on it”(Attorney General’s department, 2012), indicating that there is imperative to implement a retention plan storing our “telecommunication infrastructure to secure its availability and integrity” (Attorney General’s department, 2012).This calls for the attention of begging the question (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009), as in accordance to the EFT(Electronic Frontiers Australia, 2012) that a centralized database will be inefficient, as opposed to multiple sources that can be accessed as efficiently, or (or even more easily) than once central, which evidently contradicts the essence of the proposal reform.Additionally (Head, M,2012) states that Australian residents are already subjected to intensive monitoring of their telecommunications.

In 2010-11, according to official data, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies were granted nearly a quarter of a million dollars to intercept requests under the existing legislation (Head, M,2012).Moreover looking specifically at communications data, section 313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) imposes obligations on all carriers and carriage service providers ‘to provide all assistance to Commonwealth, State and Territory Government agencies that is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law or a law imposing a monetary penalty, the protection of the public revenue or the safeguarding of national security’ (Interception and Access) Act 1979).Significantly, this involves, amongst other obligations, providing assistance to agencies in relation to the interception of communications and access to stored communications (Lyon, D, 2012). Similarly there is no ‘hard evidence’ to support the statement that changes in technology and the practices of are causing serious problems for law enforcement agencies (EFT, 2012), Additionally no statistics have been provided on the number of attempts made by law enforcement agencies to obtain data from companies that were unsuccessful due to the company not being able to retrieve or collecting the data.Through the thorough analysis of both perspectives, on the issue Australian Surveillance, specifically the telecommunication interception reform, telecommunication sector security reform, and Australian intelligence community reform. Has led me to believe Australia should reject mandatory data retention.

The government wants communication sectors including mobile telephone and Internet service providers to retain traffic and location data of all users for two years (Head, M, 2012).This would create massive collections of data that will be at threat of automatic disclosure, misuse, or breach (EFT, 2012). Additionally the actual reality of formal inquiry as to your identity rather than the relevant characteristic (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009), implies that we are not equal before the law and places you in the position of being not a customer or equal citizen, which steams from the fundamental principle of a free society under the rule of law (Head, M & Mann, S, 2009), because we have to be treated equally in equal circumstances.Moreover because the capacity to speak freely about any kinds of matters – personal, religious, political, will be spied upon, it will create a constrained society, which in turn will be controlled by different sects of the government, which means fundamental human rights will be constrained or diminished, which essentially is indicative of democracy being threatened.Conclusively without sound justification as to why the laws that already exist need expansion, validation of the proposed implementation cannot be warranted to protect Australians, but instead it exploits the natural right to privacy and in some cases work/ freedom of speech of Australians.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Socialists such as Mike Head believe that these propositions are disguised in allowing unprecedented powers.However General Attorney’s department through taking a utilitarian standpoint, insist that achieving the greatest good for the greatest happiness (which in this case is security). Nonetheless these proposals not only act as a threat to freedom of privacy under the human Rights declaration, but also allowing unprecedented powers and economic resources, in what seems to gain excessive control. References: Attorney-General’s Department (2012)EQUIPPING AUSTRALIA AGAINST EMERGING AND EVOLVING THREATSAustralian economy leads the world. 2012. Australian economy leads the world. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.

smh. com. au/opinion/political-news/australian-economy-leads-the-world-20120418-1x6ac. html.

[Accessed 9 October 2012]. Electronic Frontiers Australia | Your voice for digital freedom, access and privacy.. 2012. Electronic Frontiers Australia | Your voice for digital freedom, access and privacy.

. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www. efa. org.

au/. [Accessed 8 October 2012].

x

Hi!
I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Click here