[AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention

Mon Mar 2 09:36:21 EST 2015

Not sure how this would work (from the report)

(a) the type of communication; Examples: Voice, SMS, email, chat, forum,
social media. (b) the type of the relevant service; Examples: ADSL, Wi-Fi,
VoIP, cable, GPRS, VoLTE, LTE. (c) the features of the relevant service
that were, or would have been, used by or enabled for the communication.
Examples: call waiting, call forwarding, bandwidth allowances

Surely the ISP cannot record Chat, Forum, Social Media (there is a comma
between Chat and Forum) this would have to be up to the Facebooks, Googles
etc?

On 2 March 2015 at 09:20, Stuart Low <stuart.low at me.com> wrote:

> Hmm, ok so a little bit off topic but 2 years, is that all that's
> required? Lucky you guys! In finance it's 7 years for typical and infinite
> for specific elements (trader convos). For even a small organisations that
> translates to 10+ PB and it's expensive and often tediously look after
> (hello from the trenches :p).
>
> RE: Glacier, realise that Amazon provides no guarantee it will be
> available (ie. Best effort) which depending on your risk appetite might not
> be good enough. I believe Hitachi has been offering a private label setup
> based on HCP for a while, probably an order of magnitude more expensive
> though.
>
> Never thought I'd say this but dual spool tape onsite/offsite may be
> cheaper...
>
> Stu
>
>
>
> On 2 Mar 2015, at 9:06 am, Damien Gardner Jnr <rendrag at rendrag.net> wrote:
>
> Is that all it's going to be?  If that's the case, I'm set, as I already
> archive 90% of my mailserver logs for 2 years as a requirement of one of my
> customers (funnily enough, AGD :-p)
>
> We were just discussing it at $dayjob, and the Network team were of the
> understanding it would require us archiving our sflow data (or is that no
> longer on the table?? If so, that makes it a lot easier!).  I did some
> quick sums, and shoving that into Amazon Glacier (80TB/month growth) would
> be growing at $800/month^2 - so once you hit the 2 years retention
> requirement, you're holding at 1.9PB of storage (!@#!#!), and paying
> $19k/month for that storage.  And that's at 100:1 sflow sampling (full
> netflow would NOT be possible)
>
>
> On 2 March 2015 at 09:00, Mark McKibbin <mark at team.dcsi.net.au> wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with the legislation, however as we are now stuck with it
>> it does not seem over onerous. At a glance it looks like encrypted mail
>> logs (no big deal), telephone call data that we already record.... have I
>> missed something?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mark McKibbin
>> DCSI
>>
>> On 2 March 2015 at 08:47, Nathan Brookfield <
>> Nathan.Brookfield at simtronic.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>  I know it covers me without any hesitation unfortunately so I’ve come
>>> to grips with the fact I just need to suck it up.  Storage is cheap, mirror
>>> ports are easy to implement and we’re small enough at the moment that it’s
>>> not going to cause me any major pain and we’ll likely never be asked for
>>> the data…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Damien Gardner Jnr [mailto:rendrag at rendrag.net]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 2 March 2015 8:43 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* Nathan Brookfield
>>> *Cc:* Paul Wilkins; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I just don't agree.  The way I read it as it currently
>>> stands, I can basically ignore the legislation until someone definitively
>>> says I have to (i.e. the 'The minister may issue a determination
>>> specifically declaring a company to be a hosting provider').
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds like you WANT to have to collect metadata Nath ;)  Why are you
>>> arguing so hard to be covered by the new legislation??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2015 at 08:38, Nathan Brookfield <
>>> Nathan.Brookfield at simtronic.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the best case scenario they are leasing the ‘Hardware’ but that does
>>> not mean they are leasing the space, in the majority of cases they are
>>> going to be paying for a ‘service’ which you are providing on your own
>>> hardware (hosting/vps) and you ‘the hosting provider’ are leasing the
>>> space, not the end client.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think on this argument you would need a REALLY good lawyer…..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very different argument to the Megaport/PIPE issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Damien Gardner Jnr [mailto:rendrag at rendrag.net]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 2 March 2015 8:33 AM
>>> *To:* Nathan Brookfield
>>> *Cc:* Paul Wilkins; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But the customer is located within the facility? They're leasing
>>> hardware/space/etc from you, so they are your tenant - therefore they are
>>> located in the facility?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2015 at 08:26, Nathan Brookfield <
>>> Nathan.Brookfield at simtronic.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> But you are providing said (hosting/colo/dedi/vds) services in multiple
>>> data centres and the actual customer is not located within that facility, I
>>> think that one would be hard pressed to stand behind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Damien
>>> Gardner Jnr
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 2 March 2015 6:32 AM
>>> *To:* Paul Wilkins
>>> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're going to quote the Carriage Service definition from the
>>> Telecommunications Act, you also need to note Section 89, the 'same
>>> premises' exclusion. This excludes services delivered inside the same
>>> building, which reads to me that provided you're only supplying internet
>>> services inside of Datacenters (which most hosting/colo/dedi/vds companies
>>> do), you're not providing carriage services, and thus aren't affected by
>>> this bill?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2015 at 02:51, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fundamental qualifier is whether you provide a 'carriage service',
>>> as defined by the Telecommunications Act, 1997. (The Broadcasting Services
>>> Act relies on the definition in the Telco Act).
>>>
>>> *carriage service* means a service for carrying communications by means
>>> of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you provide a service (or resell a service) for the termination of
>>> cables or fiber, you're clearly within the scope of the bill.
>>>
>>> If you don't touch the physical or data link layers, the bill may or may
>>> not apply, subject to interpretation and legal argument. It's not clear if
>>> a communication at the IP layer is to the opposite IP (which arguably
>>> requires transmission by electromagnetic energy). Then again, IP doesn't
>>> deal with electromagnetic radiation, so perhaps not, but I wouldn't think
>>> this a strong argument.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, if the communication is viewed as from the IP to the MAC,
>>> then the communication is local and there is no transmission via
>>> electromagnetic energy (except from what is local to the NIC chipset).
>>> Assuming this interpretation, the IP<>IP conversation would be 'content' of
>>> the MAC<>IP communication, and still remains outside the bill.
>>>
>>> As I've said, the lawyers will have a lot of fun with this. I'm not a
>>> lawyer and don't represent myself as a legal expert. If you need informed
>>> opinion, consult a legal professional, or ask the advice of the Dep't of
>>> Communications, who administer both the Telco Act, and the Broadcasting
>>> Services Act.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Damien Gardner Jnr
>>> VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
>>> rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
>>> --
>>> We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
>>>  We ran to the sounds of thunder.
>>> We danced among the lightning bolts,
>>>  and tore the world asunder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Damien Gardner Jnr
>>> VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
>>> rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
>>> --
>>> We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
>>>  We ran to the sounds of thunder.
>>> We danced among the lightning bolts,
>>>  and tore the world asunder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Damien Gardner Jnr
>>> VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
>>> rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
>>> --
>>> We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
>>>  We ran to the sounds of thunder.
>>> We danced among the lightning bolts,
>>>  and tore the world asunder
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [image: DCSI Logo]
>>
>> *Mark McKibbin*
>> Director
>>
>>
>>
>> DCS Internet Pty Ltd | 64 Queen St, Warragul VIC 3820
>> W: www.dcsi.net.au | P: 1300 665 575 | F: 1300 556 595
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Damien Gardner Jnr
> VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
> rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
> --
> We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
>  We ran to the sounds of thunder.
> We danced among the lightning bolts,
>  and tore the world asunder
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>

-- 

[image: DCSI Logo]

*Mark McKibbin*
Director

DCS Internet Pty Ltd | 64 Queen St, Warragul VIC 3820
W: www.dcsi.net.au | P: 1300 665 575 | F: 1300 556 595
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150302/338de9bc/attachment-0001.html>