[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS
me at chrishawker.com.au
Tue Dec 4 20:22:39 EST 2018
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Dec 2018, at 2:30 pm, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com<mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
APH calendar<https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/About_the_House_News/This_week_in_the_House> shows the Bill scheduled for debate tomorrow.
Last media release from PJCIS<https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Media_Releases> 28 Nov, they would hear evidence from security agencies as to the urgency of the Bill.
Push meets shove?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 11:16, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com<mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
This morning I don't know what to think.
Somehow a confidential submission, by the AFP no less, to the PJCIS has leaked.
So the government needs to pass new powers so police can investigate serious crime, including I suppose where it's the government that leaks.
Or on the other hand, if the government can't maintain the security of their own papers, how can the public and industry ever rely on government for the security of their business and personal data?
By the way, where you see Liberals arguing police need the same powers as ASIO and AFP, this actually is not correct. The intelligence services need Exceptional Access powers. I see no reason for the extent of judicial writ for the police to go anything beyond Legal Intercept. Which requires a different set of powers, different technical implementations, and diminished consequences for data security, and different rules of evidence.
How you avoid a dozen different agencies all kicking in the doors on data centres without stepping on each others toes is an exercise for the reader.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 15:31, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com<mailto:markzzzsmith at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 11:17, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com<mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Well obviously taking the time to read and consider the public and industry submissions is preferable to pronouncements of "extensive" consultation, then trying to second guess what's on the 5 Eyes' "Letter to Santa" so we can push the Bill through before Christmas.
> There does need to be a settlement between the State's need to enforce the rule of law, and citizen rights of privacy and private property. The problem is if you say it can't be done at all, governments will simply proceed without your input.
> So I think EA is going to happen, regardless.
Until the legislation is passed, EA hasn't happened.
> So we need a debate how that can be accommodated, minimising the adverse impacts, while maximising the benefits for national security, and coming to some kind of settlement with Law Enforcement that preserves citizens rights. Of course, this isn't possible under the current Dep't Home Affairs' timeline, though if Labor stalls the Bill, that will be some welcome respite.
Nobody is obligated to spend any time on something the government
proposes unless it becomes law.
If you want to work on the idea of EA it is up to you, however this is
not a EA development forum, so I think any ideas you have regarding
the mechanics are off-topic for this list.
> While we're at it, suggestions that EA could be achieved by pushing the onus for EA authentication to service provider mechanisms, is deeply flawed, but the security experts pushing this will get the ear of governments if no one else has anything constructive to say.
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 14:38, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com<mailto:markzzzsmith at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 13:17, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com<mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > “We have said we are willing to pass a bill by Thursday, which gives appropriate powers, these powers, to national security agencies with appropriate oversight to target criminals and people who are being investigated for child sex crimes."
>> > Penny Wong
>> > So that's settled. Without Labor's support, the Bill can't proceed. The Liberal's are too invested to compromise, and they need this in play only for the politics. So 50/50 the Bill is sunk, or we get ASIO/AFP powers, a sunset clause, and a considered bill somewhere down the track.
>> Not properly considered, because the politicians aren't listening to
>> the information security technology experts about how feasible it is
>> to build this securely.
>> Legislating the impossible doesn't make it possible.
>> > Kind regards
>> > Paul Wilkins
>> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 13:00, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com<mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> Scott Morrison 'blew up' bipartisan compromise on encryption, says Labor
>> >> Government and opposition locked in battle over laws to allow security and intelligence agencies access to encrypted telecommunications
>> >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 11:39, I <beatthebastards at inbox.com<mailto:beatthebastards at inbox.com>> wrote:
>> >>> Paul Wilkins wrote:
>> >>> Parliamentary Calendar is showing the Bill listed for debate Wed 5th December. Not sure by what process it gets listed.
>> >>> Perhaps the appointment for debate is the equivalent of a mention in the court process and it will be returned to the committee.
>> >>> Rob
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> AusNOG mailing list
>> >>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > AusNOG mailing list
>> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the AusNOG