[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Tue Dec 4 20:34:07 EST 2018

#facepalm

On Tue, 4 Dec. 2018, 8:23 pm Christopher Hawker <me at chrishawker.com.au
wrote:

> https://apple.news/AOnumlAB9THOmg_8mnMS9DA
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 2:30 pm, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> APH calendar
> <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/About_the_House_News/This_week_in_the_House>
> shows the Bill scheduled for debate tomorrow.
>
> Last media release from PJCIS
> <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Media_Releases>
> 28 Nov, they would hear evidence from security agencies as to the urgency
> of the Bill.
>
> Push meets shove?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 11:16, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181204/83e5c665/attachment.html>