[AusNOG] Data Retention - are you kidding me??

[Shane Short]

I would be recommending that you seek legal advice before complying if you’re unhappy with the circumstances of the request.

> On 16 Nov. 2016, at 12:28 pm, Ross Tsolakidis <ross at dataexpress.net.au> wrote:
> 
> Any chance you could share the type of information they requested ?
> 
> ​Ross.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:23 PM, paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au <mailto:paul%2Bausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au> <paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au <mailto:paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au>> wrote:
> Doesn't sound much different to what we were probably all expecting really Ross, from memory even the councils were wanting access......
> I just hope the said ISP got the details of who at CAC or ACMA gave that OK and they got it in writing.
> 
> We had a request a few weeks ago, the data they were looking for didn't match anything we were needing to retain so I told them we didn't have it, either way though we didn't have it nor did we need to keep it, but I never heard anything back from them.
> 
> Regards
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf Of Ross Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2016 3:13 PM
> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Subject: [AusNOG] Data Retention - are you kidding me??
> 
> 
> Had a call a short while back... I think I've got the details right, but I sure hope I've got something wrong....
> 
> 
> ISP had a senior constable come in with a request for data.
> Request had been signed by said senior constable.
> 
> As I understand the (meta)data retention legislation, a request has to be
> signed by a senior officer (commissioner or thereabouts), or a minister
> etc.
> 
> I suggested to the ISP that I thought the request was not valid but to
> check it with the CAC. Had a call back a while later that basically the
> ACMA said to honour the request, and that if there was a problem "it would
> be caught in the audit later".
> 
> This scares the pants off me.... if we're being told to just give the data
> out to low-level shitkickers with no senior level oversight or control,
> there's going to be no end of vexatious queries, fishing expeditions and
> trivial requests. Who's going to get banged up if we disclose private
> information that turns out (later) to have been given incorrectly? How
> will the damage to affected person(s) be undone?
> 
> A highly, HIGHLY dangerous precedent. (This was a smaller non-metro ISP in
> a fairly out-of-the-way part of the world, perhaps for the very reason
> that if it blows up in their face they can hide it more effectively than
> if it was a large, highly visible isp).
> 
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog <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 <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/20161116/e05433c9/attachment.html>