In April 2015, the Australian Government passed the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act, which imposes obligations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to collect metadata information about their users and store this metadata for a period of two years. This article reviews the operation of the Act and considers the extent to which it conflicts with the human right to privacy. We suggest that the broad scope of the data retention obligations and the lack of judicial safeguards to limit access to collected data presents a clear conflict with the requirements of international law. From its conception through to its ongoing implementation, Australia’s data retention scheme has been controversial. The Government has generally asserted that data retention is necessary to further Australia’s national security interests and to assist law enforcement agencies with criminal investigations. In the face of criticism, however, Government officials have been notably unable to justify the scheme on these grounds, or to show that data retention is a proportionate response to national security and law enforcement concerns. The passage of data retention in Australia is particularly notable for the significant confusion not only over what the scheme would achieve, but what it would actually do. The Data Retention Act does not clearly explain what constitutes “metadata” for the purposes of the Act, nor, famously, was the Attorney-General George Brandis able to define metadata when asked about it. This is part of a broader narrative of disagreement and confusion about what data is suitable for collection and how data collection can impact upon the privacy interests of Australian citizens. We examine how public interest concerns were dealt with during the passage of the Act as reflected in Australian news media. While the Act was controversial and subject to substantial ongoing criticism, the Government ultimately did little to address the human rights concerns that had been raised. The Act was ultimately passed with bi-partisan support, despite severe deficiencies in the justifications, a lack of clarity in the operation of the scheme, and heated public opposition from a small but vocal group of advocates. We show how the complexity of the Act appeared to limit engaged critique in the mainstream media, and how escalating fears over domestic and international terrorist attacks were exploited to secure the Act’s passage through federal Parliament.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚数据保留制度的通过：国家安全，人权和媒体审查

2015年4月，澳大利亚政府通过了《电信（侦听和访问）修正案（数据保留）法》，该法规定互联网服务提供商（ISP）有义务收集有关其用户的元数据信息并将此元数据存储两年。本文回顾了该法的实施，并考虑了该法与隐私权之间的冲突程度。我们建议，数据保留义务的广泛范围以及缺乏限制访问收集数据的司法保障，显然与国际法的要求相抵触。从概念到实施，澳大利亚的数据保留方案一直备受争议。政府一般认为，保留数据对于促进澳大利亚的国家安全利益和协助执法机构进行刑事调查是必要的。但是，面对批评，政府官员显然无法基于这些理由为该计划辩护，也无法表明数据保留是对国家安全和执法关注的适当回应。在澳大利亚，保留数据的方式尤其值得注意，不仅因为该计划将实现什么，而且实际上将要做什么，也造成了极大的混乱。《数据保留法》没有明确解释该法的目的是什么构成“元数据”，著名的是，总检察长乔治·布兰德（George Brandbrand）能够在被询问时定义元数据。这是关于哪些数据适合收集以及数据收集如何影响澳大利亚公民的隐私利益的分歧和混淆的更广泛叙述的一部分。我们研究了澳大利亚新闻媒体反映的该法案通过期间如何处理公众利益问题。虽然该法令引起争议，并受到持续不断的批评，但政府最终没有采取任何行动解决所提出的人权问题。该法案最终在两党支持下获得通过，尽管理由严重不足，该计划的运作缺乏明确性，并受到一小撮但直言不讳的拥护者的强烈反对。我们展示了该法案的复杂性如何似乎限制了主流媒体的参与式批评，