[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Paul Wilkins]

I don't need to make the EA arguments, when a no less august body than the
IAB has made them in their PJCIS submission. (Though my PJCIS submissions
do refer to EA mechanisms, so to suggest at this stage I'm not aware of EA
is to demonstrate you've arrived late to the debate).

Those opposed to EA should consider whether a limited Bill restricted to
ASIO/AFP and terrorism/child abuse should be lightly dismissed.

The industrial scope of the present Bill ensures that EA mechanisms will be
implemented. On the other hand, application of powers restricted to
ASIO/AFP and terrorism/child abuse is of such limited scope that
interventions would be specific to each investigation. Depending of course
on the final form of the Bill. This could only go as far as, given a
warrant, a requirement to then assist getting the data retrieved under the
warrant to law enforcement. Hence it could mean either no EA, or EA only in
such specific circumstances that the intervention goes only as far as
supporting the existing warrant regime rather than extending it. In some
people's opinions, including mine, this meets the requirements of necessity
and proportionality. Such a dramatic reduction in scope is a huge gain in
terms of reduced security impacts of the legislation, and realistically,
I'm not sure the Bill can be blocked in its entirety. I've always said I
support the extension of judicial writ to the cyber realm, and I see no
reason to alter that position.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20181201/5c0560f9/attachment.html>