Since the end of June, Greg Rolles has been required to show his computer and mobile phone to the police checkpoint and give them his passwords.
Core items:
- Some accused Blockade Australia activists are barred from using encrypted apps
- Their bail conditions also state that they must unlock their devices for the police
- Civil rights groups have criticized the rules, claiming they are “unusual” and “extreme”.
He must not use encrypted messaging apps like Signal or WhatsApp. He can only have one cell phone.
And there’s a list of 38 people, many of whom are his friends, with whom he’s not allowed to associate in any way – even another activist was found out liking a post on social media.
These are the strict technology-related bail conditions imposed on some climate protesters by Blockade Australia – a development legal experts have criticized as “unusual” and “extreme”.
The climate protection network was linked to a series of protests earlier this year targeting ports and freight trains in New South Wales, and a property where activists had gathered was raided by police.
According to the police, more than 30 people were arrested for unauthorized protests and obstructing traffic, among other things.
In April, the NSW Parliament passed legislation imposing hefty fines and jail terms for activities that “bring a halt to vital economic activity”, including illegal protests on public roads, railways, tunnels, bridges and industrial areas.
Mr Rolles was arrested in late June when he was pulled off the road in Sydney for allegedly blocking roads and obstructing traffic.
Once released on bail, he deleted Signal and lost many of his contacts. Because he can’t use WhatsApp, he can no longer communicate with people in Afghanistan, for whom he organizes help with his church.
He is also concerned about the vagueness of the encryption ban. In addition to blocking certain apps such as Signal and Telegram, it states that “the defendant is prohibited from possessing or accessing an encrypted communication device and/or possessing an encrypted application/media application”.
Much of the internet is encrypted, which simply means that information is turned into code to protect it from unwanted access. Apps from online banking to streaming services are typically encrypted.
“Encryption is everywhere because it is a fundamental part of the security and functionality of modern communications technology,” said a spokesman for Electronic Frontiers Australia.
“[That includes] essentially every modern device including laptops, cell phones, ATMs, televisions, PlayStations and government websites such as myGov, Medicare and Centrelink.
Mr Rolles said he was concerned the provision could be read in its strictest interpretation.
“I’m quite scared of how this will be enforced.
“I definitely always have that kind of background anxiety – are the police going to just knock on my door?
“If a police officer was a little annoyed with me, could he say, ‘You made the call, it’s encrypted’?”
Mr Rolles has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
Facebook “thumbs up” puts activists in hot water
Defender Mark Davis, who represents some Blockade Australia activists, said the vagueness of the ban was worrying.
“It used to name the things you couldn’t have, and then they would communicate everything in encrypted form,” he said.
“You might be on your PlayStation.”
He also criticizes the non-association rules and the lack of specificity about what an “association” might be.
Mr Davis said one of his clients was arrested by police after they responded with a “thumbs up” emoji to Facebook comments shared by friends who were also said to have been part of Blockade Australia’s activities.
“Thumbs up, communicatively that’s not much,” the activist told ABC.
“The fact that the state finds this threatening – people are talking and sharing our ideas – is very revealing.”
Ultimately, no violation of bail allegations was pursued via the “likes”.
Jane Sanders, chief counsel for the Shopfront Youth Legal Centre, said in her experience such bail conditions are not all that common apart from cases of serious crime such as drug trafficking, child abuse material or repeated allegations of using a ride-hailing service to threaten or insult people.
“It would be things like that where technology is used to make things easier [police] claim to be quite serious crimes,” she said.
In the case of these climate protests, some of the alleged behaviors are “potentially serious and potentially very disruptive,” Ms Sanders said.
She said if she played devil’s advocate, police or courts might find it necessary to stop the group from communicating with each other.
Still, she believes bail is about managing risk while someone awaits trial.
“Effectively disabling the right to political communication under these conditions seems extreme to me,” Ms. Sanders said.
“A shitty way to live”
NSW Council for Civil Liberties President Josh Pallas suggested that such restrictions on communications and technology abuse the purposes of the Bail Act.
“It’s designed to deter people from not appearing in court, from committing other serious crimes, or from feeling a danger to the community, or from interfering with witnesses,” he said of the bail law.
He doesn’t see the same risks in climate protests.
“They’re protesting peacefully. Where’s the security threat?”
Likewise, according to Alice Drury, legal director of the Human Rights Law Centre, forcing someone to ensure that all their personal information is accessible to police surveillance is “an extraordinary step”.
She’s also concerned about how loosely the bail conditions are written.
“[They’re] certainly … very broad bail conditions that make it very difficult for people to understand and comply with,” she said.
“Police discretion should never be so unrestricted.”
For Mr Rolles, a committed climate activist, this leads to constant concern over whether he might be unknowingly breaking the rules by using his phone or the internet.
“I always keep in mind where my meds are and a top to wear in the guardhouse to keep warm,” he said.
“It’s a shitty way to live.”