# 6841 f11a Week 5

- nsa crypto
- bits of security

## Case Study
That government / government agencies / law enforcement / intelligence agencies should be allowed to collect and have access to all data and communications of everyone in Australia, for good purposes.

For: Yes, they should.

Against: No, they shouldn't

---
### Group 1
Judge:
- Hao Cheong
- Eric

In favour (yes, collect info):
- Victor
- Abdul

Against (no, dont collect info):
- Mitchell Wallace
- Leighton

Points in favour:
- Improves efficiency in day to day things
- Detect criminals/terrorists
- Find people, either abducted or hiding
- Rebuttals?
- The Australian Metadata Retention Laws say that agencies that need to access telecommunications data can do so to perform their functions
- Data from suspected people are allowed to be revealed for the purposes of preventing harm and terrorism
- Benefits outweigh the problems
-

Points against:
- Violation of article 12 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- All that data could be used nefariously
- Don't need all communications to catch terrorists and find missing people

---

### Group 2
Judge:
- Hayley G
- Shuxian

In favour:
- Matthew Su
- Haoming W

Against:
- Matt Li
- Sam S

Points in favour:
- To maintain safety, anti-terrorism
- e.g. 329 people died on NSW road last year
- Data collection allows for better safety measures and prevention of incidents
- Convenience
- e.g. contactless payment using facial recognition
- Risks are necessary to advance technology
- Improve facial recognition technology with more analysis, so less oversights

Summary
- National safety, monitor behaviour, predict behaviour
- Congestion control brings convenience
- Quicker flow of traffic through facial recognition
- Save time
- Less chance of identity theft
- Benefit of medical records
- Convenient access of medical records
- Health risk prediction
- Covid tracking

Points against
- Collection of all data is a breach of human rights
- Dignity and privacy
- Effectiveness of mass surveillance is in question
- Accuracy of facial recognition, 98% error rate in one deployment
- Data is fallible
- For example, 2451/2685 errors by South Wales Police systems between May 2017 and March 2018 using a facial recognition system.
- Relies on trust in authority
- Undefined parameters of use
- Not enough oversight (checks and balances)
- Potential for incompetence
- Potential for abuse
- No way of knowing how it'll be used in the future
- Data leaks

Summary
- Opposing team didn't demostrate the necessity for collection of *ALL* data
- ALL data collection goes too far
- Collection ALL data is too big of a risk
- Risk of stolen data (Type I/II errors)
- Inordinate trust in authority
- Passing on of data, lack of distruction
- Convenience is not worth the risk as stated by opposing team
- Is it worth collecting new data when current standards are effective