Fergo on my mind

I've had a few chats over the past few days on the whole Fergo/NOSIC thing, and I've read a few threads online about it as well. Most of the IRL chats were prefaced by a quick precis of the story itself - most hadn't heard about it, while much of the online discussion seems to follow this format;

"Angry Conservative from Melbourne.
What do you expect you dirty Communist? You try to sabotage the fine, humane, noble and boner-enabling work of our tireless mining companies. You should be spied on, or sent to a gulag or just plain shot. Yours etc, an angry person who loves state control."

I'm not against surveillance. I think when it comes to real groups, who really, really want to kill a whole bunch of people, a little surveillance is a good thing. Prevent a murder or beating before it happens? Yes please. I think a lot of people are missing the point though. More after el jumpo.

Let's say Martin Ferguson had reason to believe that a terrorist group was going to blow up a fracking plant, killing everyone there. Consult with ASIO, consult with the AFP, monitor suspected members. If you can stop it happening, great. I don't particularly like fracking, but I don't want to see anyone get hurt over it either.

But that's not what is happening. NOSIC, who contract to the AFP, are monitoring environmental groups to stop protest happening at all. To nip it in the bud. That's the big difference. A private group is being hired to surveil Australian citizens, feed data to a Minister and the AFP, to disrupt and derail public protest. Now, if there was a real suspicion of serious criminal or terrorist activity, it would all be run internally, you could audit this. NOSIC aren't accountable to government or the public. Nothing they do can be audited.

For people saying 'of course you have to be surveiled - you're a dirty feral!' I can only say, grow up. It's one thing to covertly monitor people to prevent violence and death, it's quite another to use surveillance as a tool to manage or disrupt people expressing a real concern. We should not use surveillance as a tool of convenience, to remove obstructions to business deals. That is simply an abuse of power, nothing more, nothing less. I am surprised that people seem to so vigourously leap to the defence of unaccountable state spying.

Let's debate it, let's set out regulation, let's create a perimeter for surveillance - what it's for, what it's not for, and how to seek redress if that power is abused. Let's face it, if you're surveiling someone, you're doing it because of reasonable suspicion of a major crime. In the same way you don't shoot a fare evader dead, you shouldn't use high level spying infrastructures to monitor small-time stuff. So, why not say that if you find out you've been spied on, you can charge them with some kind of false accusation penalty. Just because you wave a placard or sign a petition or stand around for a few hours chanting 'Rah rah rah [thing] is very bad!' does not mean you should be treated like a member of Al-Qaeda.

Let's not forget as well, this has come out in relation to the mining industry. It's an industry, not a government department. Why should private business get all the top level surveillance the country can muster at their disposal? I'm sorry but spying on actual citizens for the benefit of private businesses is wrong. It is an invasion of privacy for dubious, and hard to defend reasons.

It's in the national interest for mining to go ahead? Sure, but according to the national interest. There's real opposition to fracking in the Great Barrier Reef. Is it not also in our national interest to preserve a site of natural wonder? Our economy depends on mining? Sure, now, but that's finite. That has a life span. I'm pretty sure that by 2050, when the Reef's destroyed and Kakadu's a big open pit, we'll wonder why we squandered these things for something that never had a long life to begin with. This is the national interest - the ongoing debate of whether we need these resources, whether the cost to the environment or human lives is worth pursuing them. In that sense, shutting down or mis-labelling as terrorism the valid concerns of Australian citizens is an injustice.

The myopia of it is breath-taking. The visible bias is pathetic. So, Fergo, can you stop using a bazooka to swat a fly? Because the guys facing down a tank with a can of Mortein are getting a bit antsy...