Who Watches the Watchers ?

The legislation to retain megadata has been passed in the parliament but it is unlikely to ease suspicions that story sources and information between journalists and whistleblowers is fully protected.   Warrant access applications will be heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Public Interest Advocates will be allowed to appear and state their objections, but the media will not be automatically advised that such a request for information is being processed.

That is the sort of secrecy that worries journalists working on a story that will have huge political ramifications when it breaks.   They would much prefer to have their own legal people oppose such a request for information in open court.   A host of agencies will be seeking information for a wide range of reasons, and that will be from national security to cases of child abuse investigations.  The fact that a person under investigation will not be aware of an access request proceeding through the system is troubling.

What is also unclear is the protocol that will surround the tabling of a request to access megadata. Does this need to be accompanied by the reason for the request, and will it apply to a specific form of communication ?    Or will it open the door for an intrusion into the entire array of that persons communication needs ?

Few could argue against the need to crack terrorist networks and prevent attacks on home soil and we need to balance national security against personal privacy, but our greatest guarantee against corrupt officialdom and crime in the public service has always been the media.   The wrongdoer is fearful of public exposure and the retribution that brings. Usually, such a disclosure starts when a whistleblower has the courage to leak the story to an investigative journalist and often massive official obstacles are put in place to kill the story.   The safety of the whistleblower is paramount to the journalist involved.

Of course we would not let a potential terrorist know that we are carrying out an investigation but once started investigations can lead into many directions.  They are open to manipulation if a wrongdoer provides a bogus link to a journalist to try and discover who sparked the disclosure of criminal activity.  The missing security aspect is the secrecy involved.   How can a journalists sources be protected if an investigation is launched without the subject being aware that it may intrude into a parallel compilation of evidence - provided by a whistleblower ?

That opens an interesting can of worms.   Basically, it requires a determination that no access to megadata of a journalist should be allowed without that person being first informed and permitted to negotiate limits.  Of course, that then raises the question of what constitutes the official designation of a "Journalist " ?    Is that someone employed by a news organization, or will it also apply to a blogger who occasionally writes a comment on Facebook ?    Strangely, it is sometimes the rank amateur who launches an investigation that reaches into high places !

These unanswered questions will probably slow leaks to journalists to a mere trickle.  As long as there is uncertainty about information security many potential whistleblowers will stay their hand or insist that the passage of information take place only in personal interviews - and totally avoid telephone or email traffic.

It seems that the storage of megadata is  now ensured.   The only question is by whom - and how - and where it may be accessed without providing criminal elements with the cover they need to mask their activities from the probing investigations of journalists.