A number of Gillard government proposals would make it easier for authorities to monitor and have access to Australians' communications data.
But civil libertarians attack the proposals as part of a creeping infringement on the right to privacy.
And some are asking the Federal Government whether it's been receiving data on Australians via the US surveillance programs.
Darren Mara has this report.
When 29 year old Edward Snowden lifted the lid on the PRISM surveillance system used by US spy agencies, he sparked worldwide debate about the right to privacy versus security.
It's been reported PRISM works by tapping into the servers of a host of Internet giants, including Facebook, Google and YouTube, to trawl and collect data on foreign citizens.
The US intelligence agencies, the CIA and NSA, are said to be behind the secretive program, which has fuelled questions over Australia's surveillance regimes.
Civil libertarians say the push for broader surveillance powers is being led by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO.
They also accuse the Federal Government of collusion after it asked a special joint parliamentary committee to investigate increasing data interception and forcing telecommunications companies to retain customer data for up to two years.
The government is also seeking advice on making it an offence for telcos who fail to assist in the decryption of communications.
Simon Breheny is the director of the Legal Rights Project at the Institute of Public Affairs.
"There's a strong alliance here between the AFP, ASIO and other regulators like the ACCC, the Tax Office and ASIC. There are a lot of agencies that are pushing for this kind of data to be retained. They're pushing for these kinds of 'privacy-crushing initiatives' and it's a real shame that we've got a government that seems compliant with those kinds of ideas."
Mr Breheny denies government assertions that the increasing use of cyberspace by criminals and terrorists warrants increased surveillance of all users.
And he says forcing telcos to keep customer communications data for two years carries its own risks to every innocent Australian.
"The way of going about getting information now is the same as it has always been. There needs to be a suspicion about a particular crime or about a particular person before an agency should go then to a court and get a warrant before that information is released to them. This kind of indiscriminate, blanket data retention, this dragnet security regime is really not the way to go about solving crime. All this does is create huge silos of information that can then be attacked by hackers and by others."
The Australian Federal Police argues otherwise.
In a submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, the AFP said the rapid expansion in new ways to communicate means old ways of scrutinising criminal activity are redundant.
In its written submission late last year, the AFP said:
"The (data interception) regime has not kept pace with changing technology and aspects of it have become unnecessarily complicated and onerous, requiring substantial police resources. This inquiry presents an opportunity to modernise the regime to ensure accountability and privacy measures remain relevant."
The AFP says it wants an end to requirements that it provide certified warrants to telecommunications companies before it intercepts certain data.
Dr Michael McKinley, a lecturer in internet and international relations at the Australian National University, says this would be the latest in a long line of powers ceded to security agencies over the last decade.
"Overall, what you have is a very broad encroachment, and we've seen this a lot since 9/11. The intelligence agencies will tell you they never have enough information really, so what we're seeing is the revelations of basically incremental increases in the encroachment, and, overall, if you look at what's happened since 9/11, it has been gross."
The Australian Greens describe the data retention proposal as "premised on the unjustified paranoia that all Australians are potential criminal suspects".
The Greens are set to introduce a bill to parliament next week that would close what it calls a loophole allowing law enforcement agencies to collect Australians' private data.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the bill would reaffirm that a warrant would be required to access this phone and internet data.
He says agencies like ASIO and the Australian Federal Police have been engaging in what he calls "surveillance overreach".
"People might be a bit surprised to know that in Australia there are 300,000 requests for private information that are made every year by police and intelligence agencies, none of it requiring any kind of warrant or any sort of judicial oversight, none of requiring that a crime even needs to have been committed. So the private information of the Australian people is being vacuumed up at an enormous rate, and this amendment in this bill would be the first step in bringing that under control."
The Greens have also called on the Federal Government to disclose if it has access to private information on Australian citizens that may have been gathered by the US PRISM surveillance program.
However, Federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has refused to disclose any possible data swap deals between the US and Australia through PRISM.
Mr Dreyfus insists proper checks and balances would be in place to ensure any data gathering and sharing for surveillance would be done lawfully.
"What we would wish for and what certainly the government is going to insist on is that there be the rule of law and proper checks and balances everywhere in the world and that's what the battle is going to be about."
ANU internet and international relations expert Dr Michael McKinley says it's likely information from the PRISM program has been passed to Australian authorities.
"The claim is that the intelligence benefit is the jewel in the crown of the alliance with the United States. The outstanding question, though, is whether the United States always shares with Australia what is of interest to Australia in a timely fashion. And that question is open."
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security will table its report on the government's proposed changes to Australia's data retention laws in parliament later this month.
