[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Paul Wilkins]

This morning I don't know what to think.

Somehow a confidential submission, by the AFP no less, to the PJCIS has
leaked.

So the government needs to pass new powers so police can investigate
serious crime, including I suppose where it's the government that leaks.

Or on the other hand, if the government can't maintain the security of
their own papers, how can the public and industry ever rely on government
for the security of their business and personal data?

By the way, where you see Liberals arguing police need the same powers as
ASIO and AFP, this actually is not correct. The intelligence services need
Exceptional Access powers. I see no reason for the extent of judicial writ
for the police to go anything beyond Legal Intercept. Which requires a
different set of powers, different technical implementations, and
diminished consequences for data security, and different rules of evidence.

How you avoid a dozen different agencies all kicking in the doors on data
centres without stepping on each others toes is an exercise for the reader.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 15:31, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 11:17, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well obviously taking the time to read and consider the public and
> industry submissions is preferable to pronouncements of "extensive"
> consultation, then trying to second guess what's on the 5 Eyes' "Letter to
> Santa" so we can push the Bill through before Christmas.
> >
> > There does need to be a settlement between the State's need to enforce
> the rule of law, and citizen rights of privacy and private property. The
> problem is if you say it can't be done at all, governments will simply
> proceed without your input.
> >
> > So I think EA is going to happen, regardless.
>
> Until the legislation is passed, EA hasn't happened.
>
> > So we need a debate how that can be accommodated, minimising the adverse
> impacts, while maximising the benefits for national security, and coming to
> some kind of settlement with Law Enforcement that preserves citizens
> rights. Of course, this isn't possible under the current Dep't Home
> Affairs' timeline, though if Labor stalls the Bill, that will be some
> welcome respite.
> >
>
> Nobody is obligated to spend any time on something the government
> proposes unless it becomes law.
>
> If you want to work on the idea of EA it is up to you, however this is
> not a EA development forum, so I think any ideas you have regarding
> the mechanics are off-topic for this list.
>
>
> > While we're at it, suggestions that EA could be achieved by pushing the
> onus for EA authentication to service provider mechanisms, is deeply
> flawed, but the security experts pushing this will get the ear of
> governments if no one else has anything constructive to say.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Paul Wilkins
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 14:38, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 13:17, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > “We have said we are willing to pass a bill by Thursday, which gives
> appropriate powers, these powers, to national security agencies with
> appropriate oversight to target criminals and people who are being
> investigated for child sex crimes."
> >> > Penny Wong
> >> > So that's settled. Without Labor's support, the Bill can't proceed.
> The Liberal's are too invested to compromise, and they need this in play
> only for the politics. So 50/50 the Bill is sunk, or we get ASIO/AFP
> powers, a sunset clause, and a considered bill somewhere down the track.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not properly considered, because the politicians aren't listening to
> >> the information security technology experts about how feasible it is
> >> to build this securely.
> >>
> >> Legislating the impossible doesn't make it possible.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Kind regards
> >> >
> >> > Paul Wilkins
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 13:00, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Scott Morrison 'blew up' bipartisan compromise on encryption, says
> Labor
> >> >>
> >> >> Government and opposition locked in battle over laws to allow
> security and intelligence agencies access to encrypted telecommunications
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 11:39, I <beatthebastards at inbox.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Paul Wilkins wrote:
> >> >>> Parliamentary Calendar is showing the Bill listed for debate Wed
> 5th December. Not sure by what process it gets listed.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Perhaps the appointment for debate is the equivalent of a mention
> in the court process and it will be returned to the committee.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Rob
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> AusNOG mailing list
> >> >>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >> >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > AusNOG mailing list
> >> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >> > 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/20181204/8a00a753/attachment.html>