<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body style='font-size: 10pt'>
<p>On 31/10/2014 10:21, Mark Newton wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px">
<pre>On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Noel Butler <<a href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>> wrote:</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px">I think you'll find he's overstepped the mark, as we both know, copyright infringement is a civil mater not criminal,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px"><span style="font-size: 12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Turnbull made it perfectly clear this morning that any data in a carriage service provider's data retention repository will be available for subpoena under civil discovery.</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre> <br />Hrmm, haven't heard that one, but that would be at odds with whats written...<br /><br /></pre>
<p>Schedule 2—Restricting access to stored 1 communications and 2 telecommunications data 3<br />Part 1—Main amendments 4<br />Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 5</p>
<p><br />1 Subparagraphs 107J(1)(a)(i) and (ii) 6<br />Omit “an enforcement agency”, substitute “a criminal law-enforcement 7 agency”. 8</p>
<p>2 Subsection 110(1) 9<br />Omit “An enforcement agency”, substitute “A criminal 10 law-enforcement agency”. 11</p>
<p>3 After section 110 12<br />Insert: 13</p>
<p><br />110A Meaning of criminal law-enforcement agency 14<br />(1) Each of the following is a criminal law-enforcement agency: 15<br />(a) the Australian Federal Police; 16<br />(b) a Police Force of a State; 17<br />(c) the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity; 18<br />(d) the ACC; 19<br />(e) the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; 20<br />(f) the Crime Commission; 21<br />(g) the Independent Commission Against Corruption; 22<br />(h) the Police Integrity Commission; 23<br />(i) the IBAC; 24<br />(j) the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland; 25<br />(k) the Corruption and Crime Commission; 26<br />(l) the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption; 27<br />(m) subject to subsection (7), an authority or body for which a declaration under subsection (3) is in force.</p>
<pre><br />(ignore the funny numbers, my pasting from the PDF got screwy)<br /><br />Thats tends to suggest that, one could argue the court has no authority in law to<br /> compel release of that stored data in civil matters. Neither of us are lawyers, but one could reasonably assume that to be the case, I guess it might take a High Court challenge to answer that for certainty.<br /><br /><br /><br /></pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px">
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px">and the new bill makes it pretty clear access to the data can only be for criminal investigations,</blockquote>
<pre>No, the new bill makes it pretty clear that access without a direction from a court can only be instigated by law enforcement agencies.
If you're a carriage service provider and Village Roadshow lands a subpoena on you, you don't seriously think that you're going to ignore a court order, do you?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>if I was a carrier, I certainly would challenge it, based on the above wording.</p>
<p> </p>
</body></html>