This was only a small facet of a larger investigation by the journalists of Victoria's Special Branch, whose mass surveillance practices were outlawed in the 90s. Media infiltration and corruption is a topic worthy of far greater investigation.
So, I am looking for the story and will link to it here, or host it, but in the meantime here are two fairly interesting links (see page 903) that are relevant to the traditional journalism duo's work.
Says a lot that the mass surveillance by Vic Special Branch or the 'Operations Intelligence Unit' as they were subsequently named, was outlawed by the Victorian Supreme Court as corruption - that poor judge would have a massive coronary today, with proposed govt surveillance and that already in operation.
During that era there were specific types of police units that were disbanded in several states due to unethical practises, and special branch type squads were typically one of these.
Of course these mass surveillance/intel-collection roles have now been outsourced, firstly to private security contractors, who are conveniently not governed by the same legislative restrictions as government agencies; and, also to foreign governments who then similarly outsource intelligence gathering to private companies. (This is how whistleblower Edward Snowden came under the media spotlight, shocked by his exposure to widespread breaches of civil liberties). see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)
One of the biggest problems in outsourcing intelligence is the conflict of interest that intelligence gathering companies can potentially have, eg. collecting security data on the public for huge private corporations such as mining or logging companies (as exposed two years ago in Victoria by Dorling), or other businesses, banks, pharmaceuticals etc etc ad naus. But potentially, if for example Snowden can leak to the media, and private companies can on-use their data to help private companies, then really, private intel collectors and their companies could leak the public's data to anyone, any govt, or group.
How many CCTV systems do you have in your city & who do you think manages that private info?
I know in my local area alone, CCTV companies were even using live streaming as a marketing lure for the elderly, and also domestic violence victims, to have CCTV in their very own homes - yes, I said, live streamed to intel collection staff.
So who is watching? And, even if those recruits/employees were well screened, which I highly doubt, would you want them viewing your private life, and, in your own homes? FYI btw - domestic violence survivors usually like their space and privacy. Urgh - who thinks up these ideas!
Could your personal moments be worth selling? On the Dark Net, deviants and desperadoes sell ratted camera footage - what would stop/stops these employees from profiting the same way? (The same technique is used for use of your computer and smartphone's microphone, incidentally. Handy safety tips - http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/0/25812110 )
It's a pretty scary concept, who you are trusting your data to, especially when you consider this case in which a WA police officer who was convicted of child sex offences, had thousands of images of baby boys being abused - he was 'monitored' offending regularly for a lengthy period before his arrest.
What about the Skype scandal, in which soldiers were caught broadcasting to their mates, a private sexual liaison. It was comforting to note Gen. Morrison's response that over 200 soldiers who had demonstrated compromised ethics in relation to female soldiers, had been given the sack. This type of breach isn't isolated and has been subject of several criminal convictions against police in the last year.
If this kind of ethical vacuum exists presently in relation to available communications and surveillance technologies, why are the authorities making things worse by pretending that they have their officers' ethics under control and rolling out these technologies' widespread use?
I am really just not that comfortable with having CCTV in my home live streamed via Blue Iris to police and other places - who in their right mind would be, but does that lack of expedience make reasonable objections subversive? What have we "got to hide", right?? Yehk. But then consider this: your iPhone/smartphone can be used for audio, visual and location-tracking surveillance 24/7 and now, as of last week, all without a specific warrant.
Industrial relations court transcripts show that the people handling and receiving that data are not well paid. Frontline police earn about as much as a waitress or kitchenhand and their poor pay has long been analysed as a precursor to corruption. Regularly and historically, police and their sworn representatives have been charged for selling private information and convicted of unlawful access of confidential citizens' data. Yet the head-in-the-sand approach to Australian government accountability continues unchecked, with security services arguing for and receiving greater powers over citizens everyday - without adequate safeguards for even the already existing legislated powers.
Government contracts are equally vulnerable to exploitation by higher-paying corporate interests. Intelligence these private contractors supply as part of their roles dictates the authorities' perception of individual citizens. If police were wrongly or falsely told that an individual was a threat, that could result in overly aggressive handling of a suspect and human rights violations.
It is another glaring fault in the intelligence gathering systems - as revealed by thorough, old fashioned NatSec news reporting, that these systems could likewise be potentially exploited by foreign interests, which offer a huge, tempting, revenue carrot to very hungry economies.
##Update - this is an interesting story about the ethics of intelligence field officers - enjoy :}}
Some related links to the Ryle/Hughes investigation that exposed pervasive and indiscriminate unlawful police intelligence practices that were outlawed in the Victoria Supreme Court:
Four Corners: An Inside JobThe Age: Former commissioner defends right to infiltrate radio 3CRThe Age: In a Covert Operation, Dossiers Mounted on the Lives of Ordinary People
I'm still looking for a PDF of Tanner's 'At the Coalface' on the reporters' experiences investigating this case - email me if you have a copy
Posts
