[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS
Paul Brooks
pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au
Thu Nov 15 11:27:29 EST 2018
The meetings (now 4 in total) have been listed on the Committee website for several weeks.
We (IA) were notified of our invitation to appear and speak two weeks ago while they
were putting together the detailed runsheet.
FWIW tomorrow I'll be appearing for Internet Australia at 2:30pm, and we've brought in
Martin Thomson from the IAB to speak to the IAB submission in the same session (the
program says Mark Nottingham, but Mark couldn't make it.)
The morning session kicks off at 9am with Prof Danny Weitzner from MIT in Boston on
audio conference, followed by Stanford Law. Both made excellent submissions, and
should be entertaining listening.
I plan to be there in the room for the day, if anyone in Sydney turning up in person
wants to say g'day.
cheers,
Paul.
On 15/11/2018 10:41 AM, Nathan Brookfield wrote:
> Could they possibly give less notice.... Unbelievable!
>
> Nathan Brookfield
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd
> http://www.simtronic.com.au
>
> On 15 Nov 2018, at 10:40, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Media Release: Issue date: 14 November 2018
>
> *Second public hearing on the Encryption Bill*
>
> The second public hearing on the Telecommunication and Other Legislation Amendment
> (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 will be held on *Friday, 16 November 2018* in
> Sydney. The Committee will hear from academics, statutory oversight agencies, and
> industry peak bodies.
> Details of the public hearing:
> *9:00 am – 3.15pm
> SMC Conference & Function Centre, 66 Goulburn St, Sydney (Carrington Room)*
>
> The hearing will be live streamed (audio only) at www.aph.gov.au/live
> <http://www.aph.gov.au/live>.
>
> The full program of the hearing is available at
> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Public_Hearings
>
> Additional hearings will be held in *Canberra on 27 and 30 November*.
> Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 11:36, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Communications Alliance submission
> <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=789049aa-edfc-48e2-a79c-0dd1c28f95b8&subId=662644>**makes
> the**point both s313 and s280 (1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 are
> current extensively used to access metadata.
>
> It follows that under the new bill, about a dozen LEAs will similarly be able to
> rely on s313 and s280(1)(b) to get warrantless metadata access.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 13:09, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Coexistence with Data Retention Regime (Under Telecommunications Act)
>
>
> Passage of this Bill will set the stage for mass surveillance, where
> carriers are already subject to data retention, but the Minister may further
> declare any service provider subject to the metadata regime.
>
>
> 187A Service providers must keep certain information and documents
>
> (3A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare a service to be a
> service to which this Part applies.
>
>
> Such declaration has a statutory limitation of 40 sitting days of
> Parliament, however nothing in the Act prevents such a declaration being
> rolled over by the Minister, maintaining a metadata regime in perpetuity for
> any service they should designate. All this would lie within the provisioned
> scope of the Minister's powers without any further legislation.
>
> Access to such metadata does not necessarily require a warrant. Access under
> the Telecommunications Act can be rendered by the service provider as
> voluntary assistance.
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Rob,
> Check your inbox/spam folder 29/10.
>
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 08:33, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com
> <mailto:hudrob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Odd. I signed up to track the enquiry, but have had no
> notifications at all that additional hearings had been scheduled.
>
> There's an another additional day according to the committee website
> - 27th November.
>
> Where did you see if information that they're asking for
> supplementary submissions?
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:28, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> *UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy* has weighed in
> on the PJCIS review with incandescent criticism:
>
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8012483f-e421-41a7-8bd4-1e8eb5eb39eb&subId=661745
>
> In my considered view, the Assistance and Access Bill is an
> example of a poorly conceived national security measure that is
> equally as likely to endanger security as not; it is
> technologically questionnable if it can achieve its aims and
> avoid introducing vulnerabilities to the cybersecurity of all
> devices irrespective of whether they are mobiles, tablets,
> watches, cars, etc., and it unduly undermines human rights
> including the right to privacy. It is out of step with
> international rulings raising the related issue of how the
> Australian Government would enforce this law on transnational
> technology companies.
>
> I can't but think that if the Minister for Home Affairs to be
> doing well to attract the ire of the United Nations and his
> timing couldn't be better, just as the Government has lost
> control of the House. I'm hopeful the Australian media will pick
> up on the interest of the UN in the Bill, fingers crossed.
>
> Furthermore, the PJCIS, after announcing two additional hearings
> 16/30 Nov, are also asking for *supplementary submissions, to be
> received no later than 26 November.*
>
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> We're at a critical juncture where the Minister for Home
> Affairs may get his way and steam roll this Bill through
> Parliament (how this could play out in both Houses would be
> interesting, as they'll need either Labor or one of the
> independents in the Lower House). Or the Bill gets
> substantially modified or sent back to the Dep't Home
> Affairs to start over.
>
> What's of deep concern is that the Minister represents to
> the House consultation has been extensive, and that
> modifications of the Bill represent a consensus view. Yet
> industry has been vocal in opposition to the Bill, and have
> criticised the level of consultation and the Government's
> preparedness to receive advice:
>
> While DIGI appreciates the challenges facing law
> enforcement, we continue to have concerns with the Bill,
> which, contrary to its stated objective, we believe may
> undermine public safety by making it easier for bad actors
> to commit crimes against individuals, organisations or
> communities. We also remain concerned at the lack of
> independent oversight of Notices and the absence of checks
> and balances with this legislation, which we discuss in more
> detail in this submission.
> Submission to PJCIS - DIGI (includes Google, Amazon,
> Facebook...)(78)
>
>
> We urge the government to seriously consider the comments
> submitted by industry and civil society and consider changes
> that would protect the security and privacy of Apple’s users
> and all Australians.
> Submission to PJCIS - Apple (53)
>
> Given the complexity of the Bill, the sensitivity of the
> subject matter, and the limited consultation period, the
> summary above is not an exhaustive list of BSA's concerns
> and recommendations in respect of the Bill. There are other
> aspects of the Bill that require further consideration in
> order to find the right balance between the legitimate
> rights, needs, and responsibilities of the Australian
> Government, citizens, providers of critical infrastructure,
> third party stewards of data, and innovators.
>
> As such, we respectfully encourage the Australian Government
> to engage in further dialogue with industry to consider the
> broader issues at play and the implications (and possible
> unintended consequences of the Bill).
> Submission to PJCIS - BSA (Cisco, IBM et al.)(48)
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:48, Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I'm determined the Minister for Home Affairs doesn't get
> to drop a deeply flawed Bill on a supine and compliant
> Parliament, and have taken measures, to whit, written 22
> MPs in positions where they can influence policy, and
> provided links to submissions which point out the Bill
> as proposed is neither proportionate nor necessary:
>
> Law Council of Australia:
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=859d9cda-0f99-4bef-994f-edc6006c87bf&subId=661321
>
> Joint Councils for Civil Liberties:
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6a26c1ce-15f3-4229-9b45-dd4ad7cfb8f2&subId=661197
>
> Australian Human Rights Commission:
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a7b9ff25-7c09-41e9-b97a-56dae1ac0e94&subId=661055
>
> PJCHR,starts @ p24:
> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en
> <https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:20, Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> *New PJCIS Public Hearings*
> *
> *
> *16 Nov 2018:* Sydney, NSW
> *30 Nov 2018:* Canberra, ACT
>
> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 13:23, Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Has anyone yet had the opportunity to think
> through the use of force provisions? Does use of
> force extend beyond physical forced entry, to
> say, hacking?
>
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Compare:
>
> CHAIR: So the big companies like Facebook,
> Amazon, Twitter, over-the-top messaging
> services like Signal and WhatsApp?
> Mr Hansford: A range of different industry
> companies.
> CHAIR: *A good percentage of those?*
> Mr Hansford: *A reasonable percentage, I'd say.*
> (Public) FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2018
>
> "The government has consulted *extensively*
> with industry and the public on these
> measuresand has made amendments to reflect
> the feedback in the legislation now before
> the parliament."
> Minister for Home Affairs - Speech to
> Parliament 20 Sept 2018
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:01, Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> DIGI's submission (Amazon, Facebook,
> Google, Oath, and Twitter) has just
> appeared:
>
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d48c3c35-221d-4544-a7d7-109a82c72dc1&subId=661549
>
> On August 14, 2018, the Government
> released for Public Exposure a draft of
> the Telecommunications and Other
> Legislation Amendment (Assistance and
> Access) Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) together
> with an Exposure Document, to which DIGI
> made a submission (attached). A revised
> Bill was introduced to Parliament ten
> days following the close of submissions,
> with only minor amendments that fail to
> address its potential impacts on public
> safety, cybersecurity, privacy and human
> rights, raising concern among industry,
> consumer and civil society groups.
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Paul
> Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The PJCHR express extensive concerns
> with the bill.
>
> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en
> <https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en>
>
> The following demonstrates a posture
> where they will likely oppose the
> bill without further safeguards:
>
> 1.109 Another relevant factor in
> assessing whether a measure is
> proportionate is whether there is
> the possibility of oversight and the
> availability of review. The power to
> give a technical assistance notice
> or request, or technical capability
> notice, is not exercised by a judge,
> nor does a judge supervise its
> application. Section 317ZFA
> provides a discretionary power to a
> court, in relation to proceedings
> before it, to make such orders as
> the court considers appropriate in
> relation to the disclosure,
> protection, storage, handling or
> destruction of technical assistance
> information, if the court is
> satisfied that it is in the public
> interest. The bill does not
> otherwise provide for court
> involvement in the process of giving
> a technical assistance notice or
> request, or technical capability
> notice. The bill additionally seeks
> to amend the Administrative
> Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
> (ADJR Act) to exclude decisions
> under Part 15 of the
> Telecommunications Act (which would
> include a decision to issue a
> technical assistance notice or
> request, or technical capability
> notice) from judicial review under
> the ADJR Act. 47 In these
> circumstances, further information
> from the minister as the adequacy of
> the safeguards in terms of oversight
> and review would assist in
> determining the proportionality of
> the measures.
>
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:12, Paul
> Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> 21 October AEC had received 6890
> postal votes out of 12,788
> issued. Today, received postal
> votes is 7,789. Sharma is
> trailing by 1,552. So I'm
> calling it a Phelps' win and we
> will have minority government.
>
> Phelps will win by at least 500
> votes so no recount.
>
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:19,
> Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Transcript of public hearing
> 19th October:
>
> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2a1771c8-f314-43f2-b9b0-cd09ad8123ae%2F0000%22
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at
> 16:46, Christian Heinrich
> <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
> <mailto:christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au>>
> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at
> 2:12 PM Paul Wilkins
> <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Except that where
> subject to an order
> under 317j to conceal
> the existence of a
> TCN/TAN forms part of
> the terms.
>
> For PCI-DSS Requirement
> 4 Telstra [as an example
> I don't recommend]
> have mandated that their
> customer is responsible
> for both the
> infrastructure and
> software [as a service]
> within
> https://www.telstra.com.au/content/dam/tcom/personal/consumer-advice/pdf/business-a-full/cloud-h.pdf
> and are therefore unable
> to assist with the
> implementation of the
> TCN/TAN.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
>
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20181115/c9957f71/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list