[AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill

[Robert Hudson]

Precedent set in the UK, where they're bound by European law (until they
Brexit) and Australia are *very* far apart.  As Mark already pointed out,
the UNHRC has condemned Australia for its mandatory offshore detention
policies - and that'd made not a lick of difference.  It came out recently
that our current soon-to-be-ex-prime-minister has a trophy in his office to
remind himself that he "stopped the boats".

Don't believe me?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/i-stopped-these-boats-books-and-balls-inside-the-office-of-prime-minister-scott-morrison-20180919-p504p5.html

I suspect that one might be forgiven for thinking that someone who thought
that because the UK was bound by European law, that Australia would for
some reason change its mind on this when we've not given two brass monkeys'
.xyzs on other matters is "so far out of touch with reality as to be
indulging in fantasy".

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 14:44, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark,
> Most people read "delusional" as meaning as so out of touch with reality
> as to be indulging in fantasy. But not so, clearly there is a strong
> precedent, where the UK's RIPA laws were found in breach of article 8 of
> the European Convention on Human Rights. This action was brought by NGOs. I
> don't think it would be delusional to think these same NGOs are reviewing
> the Assistance and Access Bill and considering their options.
>
> And this of course reflects the ordinary process of legislation where
> draft bills evolve into Acts of Parliament. It's normally considered bad
> form to draft legislation that the courts will strike down as unlawful, so
> it's avoided.
>
> So we may get to see another round of public consultation on the Bill,
> with protracted public discourse as to whether the Assistance and Access
> Bill is "necessary and proportionate" and whether statutory safeguards are
> adequate.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 13:11, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>
>> I challenge you to identify the last time the High Court invalidated any
>> Australian legislation whatsoever on the grounds of conflict with the
>> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
>>
>> That’s simply not how Australia works. Never has been. It’s utterly
>> delusional to think that a Government that gets away with no consequences
>> with running island concentration camps where children literally set
>> themselves on fire might potentially run afoul of a human rights convention
>> over backdooring WhatsApp.
>>
>>   - mark
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2018, at 3:44 PM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If the legislation is ill received in some quarters, the government can
>> pass the Bill and the public will just have to suck it up. On the other
>> hand, if it's actually illegal, it's by no means unlikely that either
>> Silicon Valley corporations, or privacy NGOs, will challenge the
>> legislation.
>>
>> I'm sure Mark you're aware the UK surveillance powers have had to be
>> redrafted after a challenge to the European Court of Human Rights.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 14:22, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>>
>>> “Possible High Court challenge”?
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ, Paul, what planet are you on?
>>>
>>>
>>>  -  mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2018, at 12:18 PM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So I'd finished reading the submission of the Office of the Australian
>>> Information Commissioner
>>> <https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/submissions/public-consultation-on-the-telecommunications-and-other-legislation-amendment-assistance-and-access-bill-2018-submission-to-department-of-home-affairs>
>>> and it struck me as pretty light touch (not so very surprising). Today
>>> Google turns up the submission of the Australian Human Right Commission
>>> <https://hrawards.humanrights.gov.au/submissions/telecommunications-and-other-legislation-amendment-assistance-and-access-draft-bill-2018>
>>> . Whew! It's extensive and detailed, and full of criticism, particularly
>>> around where, in their opinion, the Bill is unlawful where it contradicts
>>> Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and
>>> Political Rights, where invasion of privacy needs to be "necessary and
>>> proportionate" to the threat. Which is all very well and sets the scene for
>>> possible High Court challenge if the Bill becomes law. All it needs is
>>> someone prepared to risk prison on the odds of creating a precedent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> 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/20180920/3bc849ac/attachment.html>