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

Wed Nov 16 17:15:44 EST 2016

Quote: The difficulty is that while they're required to advise the CAC, there's no right for you to withhold information pending CAC clarification.

I would not be releasing any information until I was 100% satisfied it was made by an authorised party in the correct format.

CAC should have already produced a simple flowchart of the process, who to contact if there are any questions, and sent it to ISPs. It really isn’t hard to do. 

Rod

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilkins
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2016 4:46 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Data Retention - are you kidding me??

I think the point is that the feds require an authorised senior executive.

State police I'd assume will also be requesting authorisation, but does show tremendous chutzpah on the part of a senior constable to be asking for DR metadata.

The difficulty is that while they're required to advise the CAC, there's no right for you to withhold information pending CAC clarification. So the onus is on operators to know whose authority they're required to recognise before they step in the door. Nor does it help the CAC don't publish this, which perhaps they should.

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

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 16 November 2016 at 16:22, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com <mailto:hudrob at gmail.com> > wrote:

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/f3bfd4c3/attachment.html>