Posted April 07, 2019 09:27:23 The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is facing criticism for failing to provide the public with information about a new national security cameras program, which it has labelled “dangerous and unnecessary”.
Key points:The AFP is facing scrutiny after its new national CCTV system is facing “unnecessary” restrictionsThe program has raised questions about whether the agency has properly tested its new surveillance systemThe new system is supposed to help police track suspects in the wake of the Paris attacksThe ABC has obtained a copy of the new program, dubbed Secure System, which is being rolled out across Australia.
It has been described as “a dangerous and unnecessary program” by the Opposition.
The ABC understands that the new system will be rolled out throughout the country on a rolling basis.
It will allow the AFP to keep tabs on suspects through facial recognition technology, and also monitor suspected threats, like a person who is driving a car, and the movements of a vehicle.
The program will be deployed over a three-year period, starting in 2019.
However, it will also be used to monitor “threats to the community” and “threat data” collected from people travelling in Australia.
A spokesperson for the AFP told the ABC that the program was only rolled out in two of the 10 police agencies in the country.
“As part of its rollout of Secure System it will be tested in seven of the country’s 11 police agencies and will only be used for threat data, in particular information relating to people who have travelled in Australia, such as visa applications, passport applications, health information, and bank account information,” the spokesperson said.
“We are also working to test the Secure System in the areas of intelligence gathering and prevention, as well as the use of surveillance technology.”
A spokesperson from the Australian Crime Commission told the agency the agency was not involved in the program.
“The CCC has no role in the rollout of the Secure Security Program, and is not involved with its implementation,” the spokesman said.
He added the CCC would be providing the AFP with a detailed briefing on the program, and would provide information about how the program would be implemented.
However, a spokesman for the ABC said the agency had not been consulted about the program’s implementation.
“While the CAA is aware of the rollout in the AFP’s national police agencies, we have no role or involvement in its implementation by AFP members,” the ABC spokesperson said in an email.
“The agency has not been contacted about the rollout and does not provide any further comment.”
The AFP has also been criticised for not doing enough to ensure that the information it gathers is safe.
In the wake the Paris terrorist attacks, the AFP was forced to release details of more than 3,000 people it believed had travelled to or from Australia to carry out terrorist activities, and about 700 of those were identified as being in the United States.
The AFP was also forced to make a decision to stop using facial recognition in the aftermath of the attacks, and instead rely on biometrics.
But this approach is not without its critics.
In a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Australian Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it was concerned about the new surveillance.
“A number of Australian organisations are concerned that the AFP may have the power to require people to identify themselves as individuals on their fingerprints and other facial recognition data,” the submission said.
The submissions also said the AFP should also release the information about those who were arrested in Australia or overseas and those who had been in contact with terrorism suspects, such a people who are travelling overseas.
The submission said the government should make the AFP more transparent about its use of biometrically scanned fingerprints, and should allow people to choose to opt out of the program entirely.
“For the most part, it is hard to see how biometrists have any influence over the AFP, or how fingerprints could have any bearing on whether or not an AFP member or officer has a valid warrant for their arrest,” the letter reads.
The federal government has also come under fire for its handling of the terrorist threat.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was set up in 2013, and it is currently the only domestic intelligence agency with a counter-terrorism unit.
The ASIO has been accused of a lack of oversight over its use and misuse of facial recognition technologies.
It also comes as the AFP announced it was moving the bulk of its counter-terrorist operations to a newly-established unit called the National Joint Task Force on Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
Topics:law-crime-and-justice,police,terrorism,crime,federal-government,government-and.govt-and_government,security-intelligence,community-and,australiaFirst posted April 06, 2019 15:20:24