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

[Rod]

For information only, this is not advice.

 

As an ISP owner, you need to know, amongst other things, PART 3-3--ACCESS BY CRIMINAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO STORED COMMUNICATIONS of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979


The form the Agency gives an ISP is in Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Regulations 1987. Format depends on type of request, normally a Form 6.


Get it wrong and you’re open to civil penalties, see s 165 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

 

Rod

 

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2016 4:23 PM
To: Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Data Retention - are you kidding me??

 

My understanding of the term "officer" in this context comes from "office bearer" (ie an individual granted authority to act on behalf of an organisation) rather than the the rank which is held by said individual.

 

When someone comes along and claims to be authorised, I suspect you'd want to be asking for the letter from the commissioner authorising them to act on behalf of the AFP in that particular matter.

 

IANAL, nor do I play one on television.  This not legal advice.

 

:)

 

Regards,


Robert

 

On 16 November 2016 at 16:00, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> > wrote:

There is no precedent. The access to data is governed under the 


TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979


 

S  5AB provides that:

(1A)  The Commissioner of Police may authorise, in writing, a senior executive AFP employee who is a member of the Australian Federal Police to be an authorised officer.

 

Firstly, a senior constable is not an officer. They're an NCO. Secondly, ask the CAC for a copy of their authorisation, as provided under:

 

(2)  A copy of an authorisation must be given to the Communications Access Coordinator: 

 

I am not a lawyer. This is not expert opinion.

 

Kind regards

 

Paul Wilkins

 

On 16 November 2016 at 15:13, Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net <mailto:ausnog at rossw.net> > wrote:


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

 


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto: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/ab823825/attachment.html>