[AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
Paul Brooks
pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au
Sun Mar 1 21:24:14 EST 2015
Lets make this simple - but if you think it *won't* apply to you, you should consult
legal advice to make sure.
See definition of Carriage Service Provider in the Telco Act, and definition of ISP in
the Broadcasting Services Act Schedule 5.
If you provide a carriage service to the public (i.e. not your own staff), you're a
service provider.
If you arrange for another CSP to provide services to the public, you're a service
provider
If you resell or wholesale another CSP's services to sell services to the public,
you're a service provider.
if you supply, or propose to
supply<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/s146b.html#supply>, an
internet carriage service to the public, you're an */internet service provider /*.
There is no registration requirement to be considered to be a Carriage Service
Provider, no license - if you provide services, you are a CSP, if you provide access
to the Internet, you are an ISP, which makes you a service provider, and the new
legislation applies to you.
There is no size threshold - it applies to the big guys, the little guys, the single
person operating from a garage with a handful of customers.
For pure hosting providers - the Broadcasting Services Act says 'Note: If a
company makes internet content available for access on the internet, and an individual
obtains access to the content using an internet carriage service, the company and the
individual are end-users in relation to the carriage of the content by the internet
carriage service.'
....so you might not be captured, but you should consult legal advice on that.
Paul.
On 27/02/2015 6:10 PM, Shaun McGuane wrote:
>
> Hi Gents,
>
>
>
> A quick question on this one.
>
>
>
> 1. What is the definition of service provider?
>
> Is this only a requirement for licensed carriers or does it extend through the
> little guys
> in hosting at the end of the food chain?
>
> Regards
>
> Shaun
>
>
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Paul Wilkins
> *Sent:* Friday, 27 February 2015 5:59 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>
>
>
> There's 2 recommendations that go to requirements for storage of metadata, which are
> very much a work in progress:
>
> Recommendation 10
>
> The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Telecommunications
> (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 clarify the
> requirements for service providers with regard to the retention, de-identification
> or destruction of data once the two year retention period has expired
>
> Recommendation 37
>
> The Committee recommends that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access)
> Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 be amended to require service providers to
> encrypt telecommunications data that has been retained for the purposes of the
> mandatory data retention regime.
>
> *To give effect to this recommendation, the Committee recommends that the Data
> Retention Implementation Working Group develop an appropriate standard of encryption
> to be incorporated into regulations*, and that the Communications Access
> Co-ordinator be required to consider a provider’s compliance with this standard as
> part of the Data Retention Implementation Plan process.
>
> Further, the Communications Access Co-ordinator should be given the
>
> power to authorise other robust security measures in limited circumstances in which
> technical difficulties prevent encryption from being implemented in existing systems
> used by service providers.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 February 2015 at 16:46, Paul Julian <paul at oxygennetworks.com.au
> <mailto:paul at oxygennetworks.com.au>> wrote:
>
> It has to be encrypted as part of the legislation Kris
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
> <mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] *On Behalf Of *Kristoffer Sheather @
> CloudCentral
> *Sent:* Friday, 27 February 2015 4:44 PM
> *To:* Phillip Grasso
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>
>
>
> Don't bother encrypting it, they probably either have the keys (or compel you to
> provide them) and/or can break the encryption.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Kristoffer Sheather
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Phillip Grasso" <phillip.grasso at gmail.com
> <mailto:phillip.grasso at gmail.com>>
> *Sent*: Friday, February 27, 2015 4:42 PM
> *To*: kris at cloudcentral.com.au <mailto:kris at cloudcentral.com.au>
> *Cc*: "Peter Lawler" <ausnog at bleeter.id.au <mailto:ausnog at bleeter.id.au>>,
> "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>"
> <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>
> *Subject*: Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>
>
>
> did they specify what kind of storage conditions it needs to be stored under?
>
>
>
> If not do it cheap as possible to keep costs to customers as long as possible;
> that sounds like jbod or a raid0 array[encrypted of course]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Kristoffer Sheather @ CloudCentral
> <kristoffer.sheather at cloudcentral.com.au
> <mailto:kristoffer.sheather at cloudcentral.com.au>> wrote:
>
> That's exactly what they should do, isn't the government supposed to be all
> about "transparency" :) ?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Kristoffer Sheather
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Phillip Grasso" <phillip.grasso at gmail.com
> <mailto:phillip.grasso at gmail.com>>
> *Sent*: Friday, February 27, 2015 4:38 PM
> *To*: "Peter Lawler" <ausnog at bleeter.id.au <mailto:ausnog at bleeter.id.au>>
> *Cc*: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>"
> <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>
> *Subject*: Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>
>
>
> who's gonna pay for this? any increase in compliance costs normally end up
> costing the customer.
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be funny if most of the ISP's put on their bill notices:
>
>
>
> *Mandatory Government Metadata surcharge tax^H^H^H: ~+$2 *
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Peter Lawler <ausnog at bleeter.id.au
> <mailto:ausnog at bleeter.id.au>> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/15 13:21, Matt Perkins wrote:
> >
> > I have one prediction the roll out of this is going to be the biggest
> > debacle since pink bats.
>
> Loathed to mention it as it's arguably OT, but there's a piece doing the
> rounds at the moment about the cost of the eHealth record stuff and how
> underutilised it has been by the general population.
>
> As such, I think you're missing the relevant debacle comparator.
>
> Pete.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.
> http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg
>
>
> Report this message as spam
> <https://console.mailguard.com.au/ras/1LuTwZsyWm/eN94K2dhlDZkeB5IQAug8/0.206>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150301/d95f4313/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list