Private data public rules

Technology has brought a new level of complexity to the debate about personal freedom.

So-called internet trolls hide behind anonymity to attack and denigrate others who have ventured online under their real identity.

Of course anonymity has been essential for those living under oppressive regimes in order to tell their stories to the world and to mobilise support within their countries.

Protest movements mobilised by the use of social media in countries such as Iran and Egypt would not survive if people were unable to hide their identities.

However the practice of creating anonymous identities can have dubious motives and can open up opportunities for criminals to engage in illegal activity.

The question for all open democratic societies is how much freedom the majority of law-abiding individuals are prepared to sacrifice so that perpetrators of crime can be apprehended.

That question was raised directly this week by the apparent back flip of Attorney General Nicola Roxon concerning the mandatory collection and storage of at least two years of data recording the online behaviour of Australian citizens.

Nicola Roxon has previously expressed concerns about such a proposal but now appears to be supportive of calls from law enforcement agencies for such a measure.

True anonymity online is hard to maintain and behaviour breaching the laws of defamation has led to litigation.

Hackers who believe they can hide their tracks have often been apprehended, although there are a small number who are able to remain one step ahead of law enforcement for longer periods of time.

Given that anonymous sources can often be traced, is it necessary to record and track the internet activities of millions of Australians, who are doing nothing illegal, in order that a small number of criminals can be found?

The principle applies in many spheres – take airports where millions of people are screened each year as a deterrent to the small number of potential terrorists.

But that does not mean it should be applied unquestioningly across society. We do not live in a police state.

There is no easy answer to the conundrum of where personal liberty ends and the laws of the State are paramount.

It is important that there be a free and open debate about measures that seek to strip away freedoms and rights, to ensure that good intentions do not lead us down dark paths from which it is difficult to return.