[AusNOG] Metadata retention... it's now (almost) a thing

[Narelle]

Yes, I admit, I am reassured by the cut and paste below.


N


On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
> On 31/10/2014 10:21, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
>
> I think you'll find he's overstepped the mark, as we both know, copyright
> infringement is a civil mater not criminal,
>
> 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.
>
>
> Hrmm, haven't heard that one, but that would be at odds with whats
> written...
>
> Schedule 2—Restricting access to stored 1 communications and 2
> telecommunications data 3
> Part 1—Main amendments 4
> Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 5
>
>
> 1 Subparagraphs 107J(1)(a)(i) and (ii) 6
> Omit “an enforcement agency”, substitute “a criminal law-enforcement 7
> agency”. 8
>
> 2 Subsection 110(1) 9
> Omit “An enforcement agency”, substitute “A criminal 10 law-enforcement
> agency”. 11
>
> 3 After section 110 12
> Insert: 13
>
>
> 110A Meaning of criminal law-enforcement agency 14
> (1) Each of the following is a criminal law-enforcement agency: 15
> (a) the Australian Federal Police; 16
> (b) a Police Force of a State; 17
> (c) the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity; 18
> (d) the ACC; 19
> (e) the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; 20
> (f) the Crime Commission; 21
> (g) the Independent Commission Against Corruption; 22
> (h) the Police Integrity Commission; 23
> (i) the IBAC; 24
> (j) the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland; 25
> (k) the Corruption and Crime Commission; 26
> (l) the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption; 27
> (m) subject to subsection (7), an authority or body for which a declaration
> under subsection (3) is in force.
>
>
> (ignore the funny numbers, my pasting from the PDF got screwy)
>
> Thats tends to suggest that, one could argue the court has no authority in
> law to
>  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.
>
>
>
> and the new bill makes it pretty clear access to the data can only be for
> criminal investigations,
>
> 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?
>
> if I was a carrier, I certainly would challenge it, based on the above
> wording.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>



-- 


Narelle
narellec at gmail.com