Existing data retention laws sufficient

Trying to tell the government – which is far more powerful than any employer, union, or professional association – where to get off is a whole other kettle of fish.

Despite my desire to keep politics and business separate, metadata also revealed my membership of the Inner West Hunters' Club and the subjects I and other members discussed in group emails, including gun law reform. I wasn't the only person identifiable either – everyone who corresponded with me had their identities revealed.

It was possible to establish who was publicly in favour of gun law reform, and who was in favour of it privately but unwilling to say anything about the issue in public for, say, employment reasons. The possibilities for blackmail are obvious. That the data will probably be stored offshore – mainly in China where it is cheap – makes the risk of hacking a real concern.

Had the analysis included my smartphone, with its site data, it would have been easy to jump to conclusions based on my location.

What would a telephone call or Google search placed in front of a brothel, gay bar or abortion clinic reveal? Imagine the caller were not me – with my classical liberal views – but a conservative Christian politician. What mischief could be had at his or her expense?

Everyone has something to hide, and something to fear, if universal data retention becomes law. It is one thing to require monitoring of certain individuals, but the idea that the government needs to store my 84 year old mother's metadata is ridiculous and should not be countenanced.

Data retention will do nothing to save us from terrorists. It places the entire population under surveillance, no matter who they are or how blameless their lives. And thanks to its sheer volume, it will make terrorism harder, not easier, to stop.