[AusNOG] ABC 7:30 report on Data Retention in civil cases

[Michael Keating]

For what it's worth, the consultation paper is at:
https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Access-to-telecommunications-data/Consultation-paper-access-to-retained-data-in-civil-proceedings.pdf

The key questions are:

1. In what circumstances do parties to civil proceedings currently request
access to telecommunications data in the data set outlined in section 187AA
of the TIA Act (refer to Attachment A)?
2. What, if any, impact would there be on civil proceedings if parties were
unable to access the telecommunications data set as outlined in section
187AA of the TIA Act?
3. Are there particular kinds of civil proceedings or circumstances in
which the prohibition in section 280(1B) of the Telecommunications Act 1997
should not apply?

Bearing in mind the prohibition applies in April, so they are working out
what to essentially leave open.

Using regulations to address "unintended consequences" of privacy
protection? Are they saying that we should throw our privacy out the
window, and for the benefit of who? Given the blank hole in the recent site
blocking court case about punishment for people trying to access blocked
sites, you could take a leap of faith and say this was left intentionally
blank so rights holders could use other means to get this information.
Especially given consultation was given such a short window, during the
Christmas/New Year break... That doesn't sound like the attorney-general's
department at all, does it.

Personally I don't really feel comfortable with the AGs department
extending themselves into areas they think they need to go into, especially
given their track record on commitment to privacy. But hey, YMMV, IANAL and
all that....

Michael Keating

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 7:30 report on ABC just now asked the question if Data Retention in civil
> cases, including copyright infringement, is now all back in consideration.
> Attorney General's call for submissions states that privacy was enshrined
> in the legislation, and that use of regulations would be used to address
> "unintended consequences" of privacy protection.
>
> I can see that there are grounds for regulation that will fill the gaps -
> internet stalking/revenge porn, dissemination of "fake news", or where
> companies have had a data breach and subsequently are prosecuting use of
> their intellectual property. And other issues that aren't obvious, so a
> score perhaps of corner cases.
>
> But nothing from the Attorney General's suggests anyone wants to revisit
> this debate. Cannot but think the ABC producers are looking for a story
> that's not there. Except that Nick Xenephon has seen fit to wade into the
> debate, expressing serious concerns. I can't help but think that use of
> regulations in excess of the original intent of the legislation, which is
> what some are suggesting could result, would necessarily be ruled by the
> courts as beyond the original legislative mandate.
>
> (I am not a lawyer. This is not expert opinion)
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170105/c355c4e6/attachment.html>