[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Thu Nov 1 08:32:56 EST 2018

Odd.  I signed up to track the enquiry, but have had no notifications at
all that additional hearings had been scheduled.

There's an another additional day according to the committee website - 27th
November.

Where did you see if information that they're asking for supplementary
submissions?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:28, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> *UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy* has weighed in on the
> PJCIS review with incandescent criticism:
>
>
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8012483f-e421-41a7-8bd4-1e8eb5eb39eb&subId=661745
>
> In my considered view, the Assistance and Access Bill is an example of a
> poorly conceived national security measure that is equally as likely to
> endanger security as not; it is technologically questionnable if it can
> achieve its aims and avoid introducing vulnerabilities to the cybersecurity
> of all devices irrespective of whether they are mobiles, tablets, watches,
> cars, etc., and it unduly undermines human rights including the right to
> privacy. It is out of step with international rulings raising the related
> issue of how the Australian Government would enforce this law on
> transnational technology companies.
>
> I can't but think that if the Minister for Home Affairs to be doing  well
> to attract the ire of the United Nations and his timing couldn't be better,
> just as the Government has lost control of the House. I'm hopeful the
> Australian media will pick up on the interest of the UN in the Bill,
> fingers crossed.
>
> Furthermore, the PJCIS, after announcing two additional hearings 16/30
> Nov, are also asking for *supplementary submissions, to be received no
> later than 26 November.*
>
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We're at a critical juncture where the Minister for Home Affairs may get
>> his way and steam roll this Bill through Parliament (how this could play
>> out in both Houses would be interesting, as they'll need either Labor or
>> one of the independents in the Lower House). Or the Bill gets substantially
>> modified or sent back to the Dep't Home Affairs to start over.
>>
>> What's of deep concern is that the Minister represents to the House
>> consultation has been extensive, and that modifications of the Bill
>> represent a consensus view. Yet industry has been vocal in opposition to
>> the Bill, and have criticised the level of consultation and the
>> Government's preparedness to receive advice:
>>
>> While DIGI appreciates the challenges facing law enforcement, we continue
>> to have concerns with the Bill, which, contrary to its stated objective, we
>> believe may undermine public safety by making it easier for bad actors to
>> commit crimes against individuals, organisations or communities. We also
>> remain concerned at the lack of independent oversight of Notices and the
>> absence of checks and balances with this legislation, which we discuss in
>> more detail in this submission.
>> Submission to PJCIS - DIGI (includes Google, Amazon, Facebook...)(78)
>>
>>
>> We urge the government to seriously consider the comments submitted by
>> industry and civil society and consider changes that would protect the
>> security and privacy of Apple’s users and all Australians.
>> Submission to PJCIS - Apple (53)
>>
>> Given the complexity of the Bill, the sensitivity of the subject matter,
>> and the  limited consultation period, the summary above is not an
>> exhaustive list of BSA's concerns and recommendations in respect of the
>> Bill. There are other aspects of the Bill that require further
>> consideration in order to find the right balance between the legitimate
>> rights, needs, and responsibilities of the Australian Government, citizens,
>> providers of critical infrastructure, third party stewards of data, and
>> innovators.
>>
>> As such, we respectfully encourage the Australian Government to engage in
>> further dialogue with industry to consider the broader issues at play and
>> the implications (and possible unintended consequences of the Bill).
>> Submission to PJCIS - BSA (Cisco, IBM et al.)(48)
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:48, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm determined the Minister for Home Affairs doesn't get to drop a
>>> deeply flawed Bill on a supine and compliant Parliament, and have taken
>>> measures, to whit, written 22 MPs in positions where they can influence
>>> policy, and provided links to submissions which point out the Bill as
>>> proposed is neither proportionate nor necessary:
>>>
>>> Law Council of Australia:
>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=859d9cda-0f99-4bef-994f-edc6006c87bf&subId=661321
>>>
>>> Joint Councils for Civil Liberties:
>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6a26c1ce-15f3-4229-9b45-dd4ad7cfb8f2&subId=661197
>>>
>>> Australian Human Rights Commission:
>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a7b9ff25-7c09-41e9-b97a-56dae1ac0e94&subId=661055
>>>
>>> PJCHR,starts @ p24:
>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:20, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *New PJCIS Public Hearings*
>>>>
>>>> *16 Nov 2018:* Sydney, NSW
>>>> *30 Nov 2018:* Canberra, ACT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 13:23, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone yet had the opportunity to think through the use of force
>>>>> provisions? Does use of force extend beyond physical forced entry, to say,
>>>>> hacking?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CHAIR: So the big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter,
>>>>>> over-the-top  messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp?
>>>>>> Mr Hansford: A range of different industry companies.
>>>>>> CHAIR: *A good percentage of those?*
>>>>>> Mr Hansford: *A reasonable percentage, I'd say.*
>>>>>> (Public) FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2018
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The government has consulted *extensively* with industry and the
>>>>>> public on these measuresand has made amendments to reflect the feedback in
>>>>>> the legislation now before the parliament."
>>>>>> Minister for Home Affairs - Speech to Parliament 20 Sept 2018
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:01, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DIGI's submission (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Oath, and Twitter) has
>>>>>>> just appeared:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d48c3c35-221d-4544-a7d7-109a82c72dc1&subId=661549
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On August 14, 2018, the Government released for Public Exposure a
>>>>>>> draft of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance
>>>>>>> and Access) Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) together with an Exposure Document, to
>>>>>>> which DIGI made a submission (attached). A revised Bill was introduced to
>>>>>>> Parliament ten days following the close of submissions, with only minor
>>>>>>> amendments that fail to address its potential impacts on public safety,
>>>>>>> cybersecurity, privacy and human rights, raising concern among industry,
>>>>>>> consumer and civil society groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The PJCHR express extensive concerns with the bill.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following demonstrates a posture where they will likely oppose
>>>>>>>> the bill without further safeguards:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.109 Another relevant factor in assessing whether a measure is
>>>>>>>> proportionate is whether there is the possibility of oversight and the
>>>>>>>> availability of review. The power to give a technical assistance notice or
>>>>>>>> request, or technical  capability notice, is not exercised by a judge, nor
>>>>>>>> does a judge supervise its application.  Section 317ZFA provides a
>>>>>>>> discretionary power to a court, in relation to proceedings  before it, to
>>>>>>>> make such orders as the court considers appropriate in relation to the
>>>>>>>> disclosure, protection, storage, handling or destruction of technical
>>>>>>>> assistance information, if the court is satisfied that it is in the public
>>>>>>>> interest. The bill does  not otherwise provide for court involvement in the
>>>>>>>> process of giving a technical assistance notice or request, or technical
>>>>>>>> capability notice. The bill additionally  seeks to amend the Administrative
>>>>>>>> Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to exclude decisions under
>>>>>>>> Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act (which would  include a decision to
>>>>>>>> issue a technical assistance notice or request, or technical  capability
>>>>>>>> notice) from judicial review under the ADJR Act. 47 In these circumstances,
>>>>>>>> further information from the minister as the adequacy of the safeguards in
>>>>>>>> terms of oversight and review would assist in determining the
>>>>>>>> proportionality of the measures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:12, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 21 October AEC had received 6890 postal votes out of 12,788
>>>>>>>>> issued. Today, received postal votes is 7,789. Sharma is trailing by 1,552.
>>>>>>>>> So I'm calling it a Phelps' win and we will have minority government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phelps will win by at least 500 votes so no recount.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:19, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Transcript of public hearing 19th October:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2a1771c8-f314-43f2-b9b0-cd09ad8123ae%2F0000%22
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:46, Christian Heinrich <
>>>>>>>>>> christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:12 PM Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > Except that where subject to an order under 317j to conceal
>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of a TCN/TAN forms part of the terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For PCI-DSS Requirement 4 Telstra [as an example I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> recommend]
>>>>>>>>>>> have mandated that their customer is responsible for both the
>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and software [as a service] within
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telstra.com.au/content/dam/tcom/personal/consumer-advice/pdf/business-a-full/cloud-h.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> and are therefore unable to assist with the implementation of the
>>>>>>>>>>> TCN/TAN.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Christian Heinrich
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181101/20c95a4e/attachment.html>