Revelations Telstra agreed to store emails and phone calls for potential surveillance by the United States have led to calls for greater judicial oversight of governments and their intelligence agencies.
The agreement was forged in the months following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
It supports claims made by US whistleblower Edward Snowden that large amounts of data sent around the world could be intercepted by the US based on agreements its various agencies had signed with foreign corporations.
Greg Dyett has the details.
The agreement signed in November 2001 required Telstra to channel all communications involving the United States through a secure facility in America that was staffed by US citizens who had security clearances.
The US Department of Justice and the FBI required Telstra to provide technical or other assistance to facilitate electronic surveillance.
Telstra has defended the deal saying it was necessary to comply with US domestic law and it says telecommunications carriers operating in any jurisdiction are legally required to provide various forms of assistance to government agencies.
Before Edward Snowden's revelations about the extent of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, another intelligence agent revealed in May that the United States was capable of listening to telephone calls made in the past, presumably through data storage arrangements such as the one Telstra had signed.
Speaking on CNN, former FBI counterrorism agent Tim Clemente said the US had the means to monitor all forms of digital communication and that none of it is secure.
"Those assets allow us to gain information and intelligence on things that we can't use ordinarily in a criminal investigation but are used for major terrorism investigations or counter-intelligence investigations. (Interviewer) And you're not talking about a voicemail right? What are you talking about, exactly? (Clemente) I'm talking about all digital communications are, there's a way to look at digital communications in the past and I can't go into detail of how that's done or what's done but I can tell you that no digital communication is secure and so these communications will be found out, the conversation will be known."
Doctor Adam Lockyer from the United States Studies Centre in Sydney says US surveillance of communications originating from outside its borders makes it easier for it to carry out domestic surveillance.
"To monitor domestically the United States government has to navigate between varying different laws. So on the one hand you have everything from the Fourth Amendment which requires the government to have probable cause before they can seek evidence on one of their citizens. On the other hand, they have the Patriot Act which gives the government a pretty free hand to monitor the domestic communications of their citizens. But it's still a bit of a minefield so one way around this is to monitor international phone calls so they can monitor phone calls coming from places like Australia into the United States and if they pick up anything suspicious, they can then seek a warrant."
The United States government has defended its surveillance programs in recent weeks in the face of the Snowden leaks, including reiterating that its intelligence agencies have used surveillance to stop terrorist attacks.
One of the founders of Australia's WikiLeaks Party, Omar Todd, says that defence doesn't justify the extent of the surveillance that's being carried out.
"It's an argument that has some merit. No-one can deny that. But the problem is the balance tipping too far the other way so, you know, the role of the WikiLeaks Party, for instance, is to try to readdress the balance and to make sure that these type of policies have proper oversight and judicial review and at the moment I think these contracts and things similar to these types of surveillance operations don't have enough oversight."
Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens says the surveillance goes well beyond anything to do with national security.
"For what national security purpose does the US government think that it needs to surveill in real time the whole world's population whether they're criminals or not? What we're seeing here is surveillance over-reach on an extraordinary scale."
As the party's spokesman on Communications, Senator Ludlam described Telstra's secret deal as an extraordinary breach of trust, an invasion of privacy and an erosion of Australia's sovereignty.
Omar Todd from the WikiLeaks Party says the agreement undescores the need for greater independent oversight of governments and their intelligence agencies.
"The people or the elected officials of people should be asking questions on contracts of this nature. You don't have to be a technical expert or an expert in terrorism to know that a contract like the Telstra one is, you know, dangerous if it's in perpetuity, if it goes forever. So you need to look at the contracts so really it comes to people like the Senate who could advise the judicial system or at least raise the issue and then it could be moved forward to other peer review groups whether it's judicial or a panel or experts."
Share
