Question

Meta-data can be roughly thought of as the “envelope” of a message. For example, the meta-data of a phone call would include information on the caller, callee, time, date, length, but not the actual discussion that took place. In 2015, the Australian government passed a controversial law requiring telecommunications companies to collect and store meta-data. This law came into effect in 2017 [1]. One argument that was made by the government was that it was only collecting meta-data, not the message data itself. Another argument was that this was required for security, and that law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear.

a) Is routine collection of meta-data an invasion of privacy?

b) How do you feel about the Australian government's two arguments?

c) How would you feel if your employer collected and stored meta-data relating to your activities at work (e.g. emails, phone calls)?

Answer 1

a)

Yes, The law passed by the Australian Government does invades our privacy. Collection of Meta-data does gravely harms individual's right to privacy , important conversations might not be effective as it  can be accessed by a third-party.

 

b)

The Australian Privacy Principles define limited conditions under which the collection of personal information is permissible. It says personal information must be collected by “fair” means. The law is justified by the need to protect Australians from terrorist acts. However, despite the government’s warnings, the risk of getting hurt in a terrorist attack in Australia has been historically, and is today, extremely low. To date, the government has not presented any concrete empirical evidence to indicate that this risk has substantially changed.

 

c)

If I am legally or illegally intruded by  my company and keeps the Meta-data of my communication and day-to-day deals ,I will definitely gather my colleagues ,friends ,and citizens and will definitely protest really hard until a proper law is taken for all the Government issues ,other than collection of people's life data.