With the Senate passing the Federal Government's data retention bill last week, there has been a great deal of discussion of "metadata", what it is and whether the government ought to have access to it.
Australia's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence & Security (PJCIS) last week endorsed the data retention bill, which means we're all suspects now.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott wants the mandatory data retention laws passed soon despite a number of concerns still being raised about the proposed legislation.
The purpose and implementation of the Australian government's proposed metadata retention scheme is making less sense as political pressure mounts to get the legislation passed. So what's going on?
The great irony of the Abbott government's plan enforce the mandatory data retention legislation is that while this is being done to make us safer, in fact it creates new data security risks for us all.
The House of Representatives has finally passed the third tranche of national security legislation, concerning the mandatory retention of all Australians' data when they use telecommunications services.
While those within the Westminster bubble obsess about the gender, age and Eurosceptic balance of David Cameron's re-shuffled cabinet, a serious change to UK surveillance law is being rushed through parliament with little ...
Sweden's parliament on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted through an EU-backed law obliging telecom and Internet operators to store data traffic information for at least six months.
European governments' ability to monitor citizens' online activity on security grounds has increased significantly in recent years.
New Zealand passed legislation Wednesday allowing its main intelligence agency to spy on residents and citizens, despite opposition from rights groups, international technology giants and the legal fraternity.