---
# System prepended metadata

title: 6841 f13a Week 5

---

# 6841 f13a 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:
- Alwin
- Michael

In favour:
- Jonny (2)
- Nic (1)

Against:
- Phillip (2)
- Toshi (1)

Points in favour:
- National security / preventing crime
    - Impossible to trust every single person in the country
    - 95% of criminal/terrorist orgs use Encryption services, 9 in 10
    - preventing crime is very good (saving $32 billion/year!!!!)
- Intelligence gathering
    - The government can use the data collected to make more informed policy decisions. 
- Safeguards in place to prevent innocent citizens being searched
    - All algorithmic-based searches verified by human
    - Sunset clauses on parts of the data
- Not considered mass surveillance...yet
    - Data collected is NOT of the whole populations, in fact just a small percentage (~2% of all internet traffic)
    - And only a fraction of this data is analysed/reviewed for criminal activity
- Oversight of intelligence agencies (They do exist!)
    - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS)
		- Administration + Expenditure
	- Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS)
        - Review operational activities

Points against:
- Decreased privacy for the population - reduced morale as this shows that governments don't trust the people to do the right thing.
- Repurposing of surveillance data - being used for other purposes than what was originally described.
- Governments are incapable of holding data safely - could be leaked via data breaches, etc. Ultimately reversing security when foreign agencies get their hands on the data.
- False accusations and data taken out of context (CCTV)
- Tax payers have to pay for these systems to be put in place
- Criminals will just come up with better ways to hide their identity and crimes - attacker mindset.
- Conflict of interest from the government. India has used it to further their corporate sector
    - They can also use it to push their agenda by altering their own selling points for the population
    - Indian government is suspected to have purchased Pegasus to use on Indian activists

Adjudicator notes:
- Speaker one - Reduces crime and terrorism and there is a lot of oversight and regulation which prevents the information from being abused
- Speaker two - Invasion of privacy, conflict of interest - furthers the agenda of the government (can silence dissidents etc.), taxpayer investment, getting info with no real motive
- 3 - Aleady lack of trust, how de we know who is bad without surveillance, sunset clauses, saves money in the long run
- Speaker four - Already data stored on everyone that could be looked at, lack of trust is problematic in society - breaks down liberal democracy, may be held accountable for things which are minor and wouldn't have been convicted of otherwise, we don't know how effective it would actually be, speaker 3 did not provide proof
proof -> (https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi247)!




---

### Group 2
Judge:
- Raymond
- Edward 

In favour:
- Stephanie
- Aaron

Against:
- Sean
- Siqi Zhu



Ask clifford, ill note take for now
Points in favour:
- a - There are cases where surveillance directly helps people -> Those 3000 missing children in india who were found -> effectiveness of this increses with more information
- b - Surveillance/preventative measures "work" if they seem to extreme -> covid lock down measures -> we don't see the repercussion of it working, only when it fails. -> paper on "Effectiveness of Surveillance Technology"
- c - The effective of intelligence should be measure in the benefit it provides to every other aspect of security.

- Intelligence is a tool used to inform good decisions
- Public safety and national security
- Convenience (e.g. don't have to swipe for public transport)

Points against:
**- Surveillance on innocent people is like assuming everyone is a criminal false positives make this problem even worse**
**- Is it really effective (mobile phone detection cameras doesn't really cut the number of fatalities on roads)**
**- increasing the risk of blackmail, discrimination and persuasion**
- repurpose of the data, not every company wants to self - regulate: predatory marketing, Disadvantage when applying for jobs, Stalking and identity fraud. Increasing the collection of data just inceases the avenue for abuse
- normal process of collect evidence would involve a warrant issue by a judge, surveillance program bypass this process
- The legislation is not oversight enough

Judge notes:
- against rebuttal
    - surveillance isn't for incriminating
    - benefit for protection of a business
    - police processes need data to improve vs hackers

- for rebuttal
    - not good for job seekers :( 
    - breach of privacy


---
### Group 3
Judge:
- student name

In favour:
- student name
- student name

Against:
- student name
- student name

Points in favour:
- a
- b
- c

Points against:
- f
- g
- h
---
### Group 4
Judge:
- student name 

In favour:
- student name
- student name

Against:
- student name
- student name

Points in favour:
- a
- b
- c

Points against:
- f
- g
- h
---
### Group 5
Judge:
- student name

In favour:
- student name
- student name

Against:
- student name
- student name

Points in favour:
- a
- b
- c

Points against:
- f
- g
- h
---